US v. Clinton Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6910 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. CLINTON STANLEY MATTHEWS, a/k/a Ian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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

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