United States v. Rice ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8078
    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:   March 16, 2010                 Decided:   March 23, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, 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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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    Wallace      Rice       seeks    to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
    Supp.   2009)    motion.     The     order      is    not    appealable     unless   a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                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).        A
    prisoner     satisfies      this        standard       by    demonstrating        that
    reasonable      jurists    would    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 Cir. 2001).                           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 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 098078

Filed Date: 3/23/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021