UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(West Supp. 2012)

proceeding. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

.

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