Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario N. BAKER, a/k/a Mario Nathaniel Baker, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-24
Citations: 610 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 15-6527
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario N. BAKER, a/k/a Mario Nathaniel Baker, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario N. BAKER, a/k/a Mario Nathaniel Baker, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6527.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2015.
Decided: July 24, 2015.
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.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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.