Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Baker, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Vernal Shawn Baker appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Baker did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Baker did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Baker's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-06-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7545

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Vernal Shawn Baker appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Baker did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Baker did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Baker's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Baker, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Vernal Shawn Baker appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Baker did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion. Specifically, Baker did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Baker's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7545

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    VERNAL SHAWN BAKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District
    Judge. (5:03-cr-00094; 5:04-cv-0917)

    Submitted:

    June 2, 2008

    Decided:

    June 19, 2008

    Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Vernal Shawn Baker, Appellant Pro Se.


    Miller A. Bushong, III,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Vernal Shawn Baker seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008)
    motion.
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.

    Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    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 contentions are adequately


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

    - 2 -

    You might also like