US v. Michael Rice

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00011-REP-2,3:08-cv-00403-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998796575]. Mailed to: Michael Rice. [11-7361]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-7361 Document: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2012 Page: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7361 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WALLACE RICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00011-REP-2; 3:08-cv-00403-REP) Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Wallace Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 11-7361 Document: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2012 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Michael Wallace Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2006). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court’s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 the 484-85. conclude We that have Rice independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and 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 2 Appeal: 11-7361 before Document: 6 Date Filed: 02/27/2012 the and court argument would Page: 3 of 3 not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?