UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6416
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN CALVIN BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00223-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00092-MR)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Calvin Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appealable 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
(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 motion 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
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3