US v. Akiba Matthew

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00581-CCB-1,1:11-cv-01897-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117463]. Mailed to: Akiba Matthews. [13-6091]

Appeal: 13-6091

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AKIBA MATTHEWS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00581-CCB-1)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 29, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akiba Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Baltimore, Maryland, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6091

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Akiba Matthews 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 Matthews has not made the requisite showing.
we

deny

the

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly,

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 13-6091

Doc: 9

materials

before

Filed: 05/29/2013

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3