United States of America v. Matthew Ivan Constance

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7173

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW IVAN CONSTANCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:18-cr-00037-HMH-1; 7:19-
cv -01235-HMH)

Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 23, 2020

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Ivan Constance, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Matthew Ivan Constance seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend the judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Constance 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