USCA11 Case: 19-11779 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11779
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00061-KD-MU
MATTHEW REEVES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(August 9, 2021)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In Reeves v. Commissioner, 836 F. App’x 733 (11th Cir. 2020), we rejected
the intellectual disability claim of Matthew Reeves—an Alabama death row
prisoner—but granted him habeas relief on the ground that his counsel had rendered
USCA11 Case: 19-11779 Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Page: 2 of 2
ineffective assistance at the penalty phase. The Supreme Court, however, reversed.
It held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did not apply a per se rule
requiring the testimony of counsel to establish an ineffectiveness claim, and that its
decision rejecting Mr. Reeves’ ineffectiveness claim was not an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). See Dunn
v. Reeves, 141 S. Ct. 2405 (2021).
As noted, we previously ruled against Mr. Reeves on his intellectual disability
claim. Given the Supreme Court’s decision on the ineffectiveness claim, we now
affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.
2