Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernal Shawn BAKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-19
Citations: 282 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 07-7545
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vernal Shawn BAKER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Vernal Shawn BAKER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7545.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 2, 2008.
Decided: June 19, 2008.
Vernal Shawn Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vernal Shawn 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.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable 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 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). 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 adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.