US v. Matthew Yate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00374-CMC-1,3:12-cv-02253-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999116102]. Mailed to: Yates. [13-6038]
Appeal: 13-6038
Doc: 6
Filed: 05/28/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6038
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW YATES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00374-CMC-1; 3:12-cv-02253-CMC)
Submitted:
May 23, 2013
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
AGEE,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
May 28, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Yates, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6038
Doc: 6
Filed: 05/28/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Matthew
Yates
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
appealability.
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 Yates has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 13-6038
Doc: 6
contentions
Filed: 05/28/2013
are
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional 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?