Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Jerome RICE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 05-6803
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald Jerome RICE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald Jerome RICE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6803.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2005.
Decided Dec. 7, 2005.
Gerald Jerome Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Jerome Rice seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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