US v. Christopher Timber


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00170-HEH-21,3:13-cv-00271-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999595244]. Mailed to: Christopher Timbers FCI ELKTON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 10 Lisbon, OH 44432 Theryn G. Gibbons. [15-6035]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6035 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6035 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER TIMBERS, a/k/a Alibi, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:10-cr-00170-HEH-21; 3:13-cv-00271-HEH) Submitted: May 18, 2015 Decided: June 3, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Timbers, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Theryn G. Gibbons, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6035 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Christopher Timbers seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 (2012). of appealability. 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Timbers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal Appeal: 15-6035 Doc: 8 contentions Filed: 06/03/2015 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?