US v. Baker, No. 06-7535 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7535 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDERICK ROOSEVELT BAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00097-RLW; 3:03-cv-741) Submitted: March 19, 2007 Decided: April 5, 2007 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Roosevelt Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Roosevelt Baker seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating constitutional that A prisoner satisfies this standard by reasonable claims are 28 jurists debatable would and that find any that his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Baker s motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a certificate of 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.