US v. Windsor Kessler, III
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000053603-2]. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00434-MJG-1,1:14-cv-01894-MJG. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Windsor Kessler. [16-7194]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
WINDSOR WARNER KESSLER, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00434-MJG-1; 1:14-cv-01894-MJG)
Submitted: April 28, 2017
Decided: May 30, 2017
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Windsor Warner Kessler, III, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Aaron Simcha Jon Zelinsky, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Windsor Warner Kessler, III appeals the district court’s orders denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his motion to reconsider, and his motion for a certificate of
appealability. By order, we granted a partial certificate of appealability and ordered
supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in
declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Kessler’s claim that he was entitled to
equitable tolling of the habeas limitations period.
We have reviewed the record,
including the parties’ informal briefs following the issuance of the certificate of
appealability, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to the claim on which we
granted a certificate of appealability, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
United States v. Kessler, Nos. 1:11-cr-00434-MJG-1; 1:14-cv-01894-MJG (D. Md.
July 22, 2016; Aug. 5 & 24, 2016). We dismiss the claims on which we previously
denied a certificate of appealability, deny Kessler’s motion for appointment of counsel
and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
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?