United States v. Kevin Baker , 548 F. App'x 904 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7260
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN A. BAKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:06-cr-00219-1)
    Submitted:   December 6, 2013               Decided:   December 20, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin A. Baker, Appellant Pro Se.     Richard Daniel Cooke, Stephen
    Wiley Miller, Assistant United        States Attorneys, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin A. Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    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
    .
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Baker 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-4913

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 904

Filed Date: 12/20/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021