Court Opinion

ID: 1013588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:03:32.159896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:55.489127
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6717

PAUL D. BAKER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-296-7-jct)

Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 21, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul D. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, William W.
Muse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Paul D. Baker appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.    An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 in the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                 - 2 -