United States of America v. Matthew Joshua Tolson

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --