US v. Michael Matthews, No. 12-6962 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6962 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00226-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00644-REP) Submitted: November 13, 2012 Decided: November 15, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael F. Matthews seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) orders are issues motion a not and appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue his absent a motion unless of reconsideration. circuit justice appealability. or 28 The judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. a for showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 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.
