UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW HIGHTOWER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00322-GJH-3; 8:19-cv-01719-GJH)

Submitted: April 22, 2024 Decided: April 30, 2024

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Hightower, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Matthew Hightower seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000)). 

On appeal, Hightower challenges the district court’s rejection of his claim that 

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the application of the seconddegree murder cross-reference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A1.2 (2015). See 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under [4th Cir. R. 34(b)], our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that counsel’s performance was not 

deficient. To the contrary, counsel’s zealous advocacy convinced the court that Hightower 

did not intend to kill the victim but acted with reckless disregard for the victim’s life. See 

United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2019) (describing mens rea for secondUSCA4 Appeal: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

degree murder). Hightower also cannot establish prejudice because the court was clear that 

it would have calculated the same Sentencing Guidelines range through a departure.

Because jurists of reason could not find debatable the district court’s rejection of 

Hightower’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the 

application of the second-degree murder cross-reference, 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: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3