US v. Michael Rice, No. 12-7864 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL WALLACE RICE, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3