Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Calvin BAKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-30
Citations: 540 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 13-6416
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Calvin BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Calvin BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6416.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2013.
John Calvin Baker, Appellant pro se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Calvin Baker seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006), which the district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not ap-pealable 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.