Court Opinion

ID: 1022216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:18:51.530985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:44.351707
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7535

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

FREDERICK ROOSEVELT BAKER,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00097-RLW; 3:03-cv-741)

Submitted:   March 19, 2007                 Decided:   April 5, 2007

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Roosevelt Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Frederick Roosevelt Baker seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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   his

constitutional    claims     are   debatable   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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).           We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Baker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,     we   deny   Baker’s    motion    for    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

                                    - 2 -