Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-03039/USCOURTS-caDC-15-03039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alexander Otis Matthews
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-3039 September Term, 2016

1:00-cr-00377-TFH-1

Filed On: November 18, 2016

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Alexander Otis Matthews,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties, including appellant’s supplement.

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 27, 2015 order be affirmed. 

This is not an extraordinary case warranting coram nobis relief. United States v. Denedo, 556

U.S. 904, 911 (2009). Appellant has not shown that the alleged Rule 11 violations affected

his substantial rights, see In re Sealed Case, 670 F.3d 1296, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 2011), or that his

attorney’s performance was deficient and he was prejudiced thereby, see Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any

timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C.

Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

By: /s/

Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #15-3039 Document #1646759 Filed: 11/18/2016 Page 1 of 1