Court Opinion

ID: 9913845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:38.600127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:21.647879
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7227      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7227

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MATHEW RYAN BYRD,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00080-1; 3:21-cv-00404)

        Submitted: December 18, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mathew Ryan Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7227      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mathew Ryan Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 showing 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 show 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 Byrd has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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