1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DEONTA MATTHEWS, 

Defendant. 

2:15-CR-20201-TGB 

 

ORDER DENYING 

CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

The Court denied Deonta Matthews’ motion to vacate his sentence 

under 8 U.S.C. § 2255 on December 15, 2020. ECF No. 369. He has filed 

a notice of appeal. ECF No. 370. Before an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

may proceed, district courts must first determine whether to certify any 

issues for appeal. 

A certificate of appealability may issue only if a petitioner makes “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). “A petitioner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could 

disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or 

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

327 (2003). 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-TGB-MKM ECF No. 372, PageID.2618 Filed 02/09/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

Mr. Matthews seeks habeas relief primarily due to alleged 

ineffective assistance of counsel. He says that at his sentencing hearing, 

his attorney Barton Morris was ineffective because he (1) failed to 

preserve certain objections to the pre-sentence report (“PSR”), (2) failed 

to object to the scoring of the sentencing guidelines, and (3) failed to argue 

that Mr. Matthews was not guilty of the murder of one Marcus Cole. ECF 

No. 358, PageID.2480; see also ECF No. 369, PageID.2606. The Court 

carefully considered each of these objections, examining the PSR, the 

transcript from the sentencing hearing, ECF No. 325, and the affidavit 

submitted by Mr. Morris himself regarding this matter, ECF No. 362-1, 

while also taking into account the standard for demonstrating ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 

(1984). The record indicated that the decision not to make these 

objections or arguments was a strategic one on Mr. Morris’ part. Strategic 

and tactical choices by attorneys are “virtually unchallengeable” and 

therefore rarely result in a constitutional violation. Vasquez v. 

Bradshaw, 345 F. App'x 104, 115 (6th Cir. 2009). 

Mr. Matthews also sought an evidentiary hearing to further develop 

the record regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. If a court 

can conclusively answer the question of performance based on the record, 

however, it is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Arredondo v. 

United States, 178 F.3d 778, 782 (6th Cir. 1999). Given the record here, 

and in particular the presence of an affidavit submitted by the attorney 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-TGB-MKM ECF No. 372, PageID.2619 Filed 02/09/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

whose conduct is in question, the Court’s decision not to hold an 

evidentiary hearing before making its decision is not one that reasonable 

jurists would dispute. 

In sum, the Court concluded that Mr. Matthews’ challenges 

generally lacked substantive merit and, as such, reasonable jurists could 

not disagree. He has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. Therefore, the Court declines to certify any 

issues, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED, this 9th day of February, 2021. 

BY THE COURT:

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20201-TGB-MKM ECF No. 372, PageID.2620 Filed 02/09/21 Page 3 of 3