United States v. Alexander Matthews ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6560
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00087-LO-1; 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1;
1:12-cv-00132-LO)
Submitted: September 18, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexander Otis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alexander Otis Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief
on his motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
and denying his “petition for panel and en banc rehearing.” The orders are 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 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