United States v. Mathis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Mathis, 300 F. App'x 250 (4th Cir. 2008)

United States v. Mathis

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN JOSEPH MATHIS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cr-00815-HMH-1; 6:08-cv-70034-HMH)

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 19, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by published per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Falkner Wilkes, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Joseph Mathis seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000)

motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v.

McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Mathis has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Mathis’s motion for a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Mathis’s

motion for limited remand. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished