United States v. Darryl Taylor, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 195 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (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, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
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