Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Stanley MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Eastwood, a/k/a Wood, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-07-31
Citations: 42 F. App'x 583
Docket Number: No. 01-7448
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Stanley MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Eastwood, a/k/a Wood, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 42
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Stanley MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Eastwood, a/k/a Wood, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-7448.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2002.
Decided July 31, 2002.
Clinton Stanley Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Marx, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Clinton S. Matthews seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Matthews, Nos. CR-98-66-A; CA-01-460-2 (E.D.Va. July 17, 2001). We dispense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.
Additionally, we find that the district court's sua sponte dismissal of Matthews' motion does not implicate Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 707 (4th Cir.2002), as Matthews failed to offer a valid basis that would justify either reliance on a later starting point in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1) (West Supp.2002), or equitable tolling, thereby salvaging his otherwise untimely petition.