Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alec Y. MATHEWS, a.k.a. Alex Matthews, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-06
Citations: 407 F. App'x 413
Docket Number: No. 10-11756
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alec Y. MATHEWS, a.k.a. Alex Matthews, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 407
Pages: 413–413

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alec Y. MATHEWS, a.k.a. Alex Matthews, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-11756
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2011.
Judy K. Hunt, A. Brian Albritton, Adelaide G. Few, John P. Moran, David Paul Rhodes, Jay Gilchrist Trezevant, United States Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alec V. Mathews, USP Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, pro se.
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alec Mathews, a federal prisoner acting pro se, appeals from the denial of his motion to file a second direct appeal out of time. Although we previously affirmed Mathews' drug and firearm convictions on direct appeal in 2008, he now argues that he should be permitted to file a second direct appeal out of time, because the district court failed to notify him that it had denied his motion — filed after trial but before sentencing — to obtain an expert evaluation of a videotape introduced by the government at his trial. However, Mathews' argument fails because the record establishes that he did in fact receive actual notice of the district court's denial of his motion, as he expressly acknowledged the denial at his sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.