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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?