Court Opinion

ID: 2820928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-28 19:01:51.745039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:02.767085
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6538

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; 3:15-cv-00113-REP-RCY)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                 Decided:   July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

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

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                       The 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,     as     in       this   case,    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, 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

                                           2