Case Name: David BAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-30
Citations: 155 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 05-7545
Parties: David BAKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
David BAKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7545.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 30, 2005.
David Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Baker, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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