US v. Clinton Matthew


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:93-cr-00066-HCM-1,2:10-cv-00228-HCM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491446] [10-6910]

Download PDF
US v. Clinton Matthew Doc. 0 Case: 10-6910 Document: 12 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6910 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CLINTON STANLEY MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian Bernard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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Marx, News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-6910 Document: 12 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 2 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 (West Supp. 2010) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of appealability. 369 F.3d 363, 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). prisoner reasonable 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating 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 both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is grounds, demonstrate that dispositive procedural 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 conclude that Matthews has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 Case: 10-6910 Document: 12 Date Filed: 12/27/2010 Page: 3 Additionally, we construe Matthews' notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 2255 motion. 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 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, and that would be sufficient that, but to for clear convincing evidence 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 and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?