US v. Rice

Filing 920070601

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-6178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00153-JAB; 1:05-cv-00574-JAB)

Submitted:

April 25, 2007

Decided:

June 1, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Nathaniel Dante Rice seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motions for reconsideration and an extension of time to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

find

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 Rice has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral

appealability and dismiss the appeals.

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

- 3 -