175 FAPPX 637 - United States v. Taylor

                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7598



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


PATRICK DENNIS TAYLOR,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-03-68-SGW; CA-05-244-SGW)


Submitted:   March 22, 2006                 Decided:   April 14, 2006


Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Patrick Dennis Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Patrick   Dennis   Taylor   seeks   to   appeal   the   district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

 (2000).       The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2) (2000).       A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -