Court Opinion

ID: 3175247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-05 20:02:30.380073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:51.916004
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7405

NICHOLAS ROBERTO-IARA BAKER,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.      Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00066-AWA-DEM)

Submitted:   January 21, 2016             Decided:   February 5, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas Roberto-Iara Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Nicholas Roberto-Iara 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.       §    2254     (2012)

petition.       The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge    issues     a    certificate         of   appealability.             28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).            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) (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    (2000);     see    Miller-El      v.    Cockrell,        537 U.S. 322,    336-38

(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 petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                                  Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.

       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 deny

Baker’s motion for appointment of counsel.                             We dispense with

oral    argument     because       the    facts         and    legal       contentions         are

                                               2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3