Opinion
No. 15-7730
03-02-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUSTIN MATTHEW, Defendant - Appellant.
Justin Matthew, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00016-RJC-CH-1; 3:13-cv-00111-RJC) Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justin Matthew, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, C. Nicks Williams, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Justin Matthew seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and he has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. The district court's 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, 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 Matthew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Matthew's 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