UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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