Michael Baker v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998923400-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998920165-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00430-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998988633]. Mailed to: Michael Baker. [12-7244]

Appeal: 12-7244

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7244

MICHAEL LEE BAKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00430-CCB)

Submitted:

November 20, 2012

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided: November 27, 2012

and

SHEDD

and

FLOYD,

Circuit

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7244

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Lee Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 12-7244

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/27/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3