Court Opinion

ID: 4568162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:32:40.129218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:45.095270
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MATTHEW IVAN CONSTANCE,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00037-HMH-1; 7:19-
cv-01235-HMH)

Submitted: July 21, 2020                                          Decided: July 23, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Ivan Constance, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Matthew Ivan Constance seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter

or amend the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Constance 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