Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06790/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06790-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael F. Matthews
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00226-REP-RCY-1; 3:10-cv-00644-REP)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6790 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying several motions. Because Matthews was attacking his 

sentence, he was seeking relief under on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The 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

Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, while 

we grant Matthews’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6790 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6790 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3