US v. Randolph Baker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00328-HEH-RCY-1, 3:13-cv-00776-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999629063]. Mailed to: Randolph Baker. [15-6591]

Appeal: 15-6591

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6591

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RANDOLPH R. BAKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00328-HEH-RCY-1; 3:13-cv-00776-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:

July 23, 2015

Decided:

July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph R. Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6591

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Randolph R. Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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.
with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

We dispense
and

legal

Appeal: 15-6591

Doc: 5

Filed: 07/28/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3