UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-6178
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00153-JAB; 1:05-cv-00574-JAB)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: June 1, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Dante Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Nathaniel Dante Rice seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion and denying his motions for reconsideration and an
extension of time to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 appeals. 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
- 3 -