UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRYL TAYLOR, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00307-RDB-1; 1:13-cv-00655-RDB)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 21, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Darryl Taylor, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion to amend and supplement a prior

pleading in his previously denied

(West Supp.

2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2006). When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,

.

In his informal brief, Taylor has failed to address

the district court’s reason for denying his motion. Therefore,

Taylor has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s

ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny the

pending motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

2 the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3