Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07405/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Roberto-Iara Baker
Appellant
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7405

NICHOLAS ROBERTO-IARA BAKER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00066-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: January 21, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Roberto-Iara Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7405 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Roberto-Iara Baker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 deny 

Baker’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 15-7405 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7405 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/05/2016 Pg: 3 of 3