Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06527/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06527-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARIO N. BAKER, a/k/a Mario Nathaniel Baker,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00088-REP-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00144-REP-RCY)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Nathaniel Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6527 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario N. Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 contentions are 

Appeal: 15-6527 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6527 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3