US v. Clinton Matthew, No. 10-6910 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6910 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CLINTON STANLEY MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard Matthew, a/k/a Craig Jerrod Ingram, a/k/a William Christopher Hinton, a/k/a Clinton Mallhew, a/k/a Stanley Matthews, a/k/a Bernard Jones, a/k/a Howard L. Eastwood, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:93-cr-00066-HCM-1; 2:10-cv-00228-HCM) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 27, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clinton Stanley Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Carol M. Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport Virginia, for Appellee. Marx, News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clinton Stanley Matthews seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice appealability. 369 F.3d or (West Supp. 2010) motion, and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and Matthews has not made the requisite showing. conclude Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 that Additionally, we construe Matthews notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable establish by by due diligence, clear and that convincing would be evidence sufficient that, but to for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010). either of these criteria. 28 U.S.C.A. Matthews claims do not satisfy Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.