US v. Jonathan Mathis, No. 08-6871 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6871 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JONATHAN JOSEPH MATHIS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00815-HMH-1; 6:08-cv-70034-HMH) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by published per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jonathan Joseph Mathis seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for reconsideration. appealable unless a circuit certificate of issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of appealability. justice The orders are not A appealability will or not judge issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude that We have Mathis independently has not the the requisite Accordingly, we deny Mathis s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. motion made reviewed for limited remand. We We also deny Mathis s dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.