Darryl Taylor v. JAMES SMITH, Warden; DOUGLAS GANSLER, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7125
DARRYL TAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES SMITH, Warden; DOUGLAS GANSLER, The Attorney General
of the State of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:05-cv-01179-RDB)
Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Lawlor, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Darryl Taylor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition. Although we initially dismissed this appeal on
the ground that Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal,
we granted Taylor’s rehearing petition and have considered the
merits of the appeal. We now dismiss the appeal because Taylor
has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a
certificate of appealability.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed
by a district court 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 both 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --