U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2020

United States v. Terrance Mathis

United States v. Terrance Mathis
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided January 28, 2020

United States v. Terrance Mathis

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRANCE GERARD MATHIS, a/k/a T-2, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-5; 2:07-cv- 00449-JBF)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrance Gerard Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Terrance Gerard Mathis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018).

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Mathis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.