Nicholas Baker v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999664836-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00066-AWA-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999749884]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-7405]

Appeal: 15-7405

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7405

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Roberto-Iara Baker seeks to appeal the district
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

accepting

denying

relief

recommendation

on

his

28

of

the

U.S.C.

§

magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 and dismiss the appeal.
Baker’s motion for appointment of counsel.
oral

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

We deny

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 15-7405

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 02/05/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3