US v. Timothy Gue
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00140-MSD-TEM-1, 2:14-cv-00093-MSD. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Timothy Guess. [16-6689]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
TIMOTHY WAYNE GUESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cr-00140-MSD-TEM-1; 2:14-cv-00093-MSD)
February 16, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
February 21, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Wayne Guess, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Timothy Wayne Guess seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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).
When the district court denies
(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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Guess has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?