Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07229/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07229-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrance Gerard Mathis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRANCE GERARD MATHIS, a/k/a T-2,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-5; 2:07-cv00449-JBF)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Gerard Mathis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7229 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrance Gerard Mathis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as 

successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 

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 Mathis 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7229 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2