United States v. Matthew Tolson

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6312 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/19/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6312 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW JOSHUA TOLSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:21-cr-00358-SAL-1; 4:23-cv-01640-SAL) Submitted: May 15, 2025 Decided: May 19, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Joshua Tolson, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Hollingsworth Flynn, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6312 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/19/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Matthew Joshua Tolson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in which he asserted that his attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to contest his career offender designation. 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)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tolson has not made the requisite showing. Specifically, Tolson has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by any alleged errors by counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 694 (1984). 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 2