US v. Kenneth Timmons


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999872111-2], denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999861667-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999861661-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00513-JFA-39,3:15-cv-01651-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999988436]. Mailed to: K Timmons. [16-6742]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6742 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ONEAL TIMMONS, a/k/a Keno, a/k/a Kino, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-39; 3:15-cv-01651-JFA) Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth ONeal Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Kenneth ONeal Timmons 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 of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 U.S.C. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Timmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Timmons’ motions for appointment of counsel and a transcript at government expense. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 materials before Filed: 12/16/2016 this court Pg: 3 of 3 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?