UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Wallace Rice seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to
correct the record in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
proceeding. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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 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 oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3