US v. Michael Rice
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00011-REP-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999054393]. Mailed to: M. Rice. [12-7864]
Appeal: 12-7864
Doc: 6
Filed: 03/01/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7864
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)
Submitted:
February 26, 2013
Decided: March 1, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 12-7864
Doc: 6
Filed: 03/01/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Michael
court’s
order
Wallace
denying
Rice
his
seeks
Fed.
R.
to
appeal
Civ.
P.
the
60(a)
district
motion
to
correct the record in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
proceeding.
justice
or
The
order
is
judge
issues
a
not
appealable
certificate
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
of
unless
a
circuit
appealability.
28
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).
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rice has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We
further deny Rice’s request for leave to correct the district
court’s record.
We
dispense
with
2
oral
argument
because
the
Appeal: 12-7864
facts
Doc: 6
and
materials
legal
before
Filed: 03/01/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
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?