Richard Trice v. States of Georgia, No. 10-6337 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6337 RICHARD EDWARD TRICE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATES OF GEORGIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (4:09-cv-02767-JFA) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Edward Trice, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Edward Trice, a former state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. (2006). justice or The judge 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. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that any 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Trice independently has not made reviewed the the requisite 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 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.