United States v. Mathew Byrd ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 2255motion. 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