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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: K Timmons. [16-6742]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
November 30, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Kenneth ONeal Timmons 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.
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).
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.
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.
deny Timmons’ motions for appointment of counsel and a transcript
at government expense.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Pg: 3 of 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?