United States v. Mathew Byrd

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7227 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATHEW RYAN BYRD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00080-1; 3:21-cv-00404)

Submitted: December 18, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mathew Ryan Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7227 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Mathew Ryan Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by showing that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show both

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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