ON REHEARING
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6485
PAUL ANTHONY RICE, a/k/a Paul Rice,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN JOHN PATE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
(4:14-cv-00185-MGL)
Submitted: December 30, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Anthony Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paul Anthony Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny Rice’s motion for transcripts at government
expense, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3