United States v. Matthew Hightower

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 30, 2024
• Docket: 22-7187
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW HIGHTOWER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00322-GJH-3; 8:19-cv-01719-GJH)

Submitted: April 22, 2024 Decided: April 30, 2024

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Hightower, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Hightower seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 demonstrating 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 demonstrate 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)).

On appeal, Hightower challenges the district court’s rejection of his claim that

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the application of the second-

degree murder cross-reference in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A1.2 (2015). See

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under [4th Cir. R. 34(b)], our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). We agree with the district court’s conclusion that counsel’s performance was not

deficient. To the contrary, counsel’s zealous advocacy convinced the court that Hightower

did not intend to kill the victim but acted with reckless disregard for the victim’s life. See

United States v. Lynn, 912 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2019) (describing mens rea for second-

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

degree murder). Hightower also cannot establish prejudice because the court was clear that

it would have calculated the same Sentencing Guidelines range through a departure.

Because jurists of reason could not find debatable the district court’s rejection of

Hightower’s claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the

application of the second-degree murder cross-reference, 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