Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07730/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7730

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN MATTHEW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-RJC-CH-1; 3:13-cv-00111-

RJC)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Matthew, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy 

Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, 

North Carolina, C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7730 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Justin Matthew seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and he has 

filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. The district 

court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 

Matthew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Matthew’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 15-7730 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7730 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3