From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Warford

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 29, 2014
583 F. App'x 289 (4th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-6447

09-29-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW BRIAN WARFORD, Defendant - Appellant.

Matthew Brian Warford, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:11-cr-00136-FL-1; 7:13-cv-00006-FL) Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Brian Warford, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Matthew Brian Warford 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 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Warford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Warford's motion to appoint counsel, 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


Summaries of

United States v. Warford

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 29, 2014
583 F. App'x 289 (4th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Warford

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW BRIAN WARFORD…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 29, 2014

Citations

583 F. App'x 289 (4th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Jaimes-Cruz v. United States

As this court has noted, where a recommendation is based upon a credibility determination, summary judgment…