Court Opinion

ID: 9965229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 21:00:32.638644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:48.745578
License: Public Domain

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

                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

        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 second-

        degree 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 second-

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

                                                    3