Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06337/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
States of Georgia
Appellee
Richard Edward Trice
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6337

RICHARD EDWARD TRICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATES OF GEORGIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (4:09-cv-02767-JFA)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Edward Trice, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6337 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Edward Trice, a former state prisoner, seeks 

to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition, and denying reconsideration. The 

orders are 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 Trice 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

Appeal: 10-6337 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2