US v. Windsor Kessler, III

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000090052]. Mailed to: Windsor Kessler. [16-7194]

Appeal: 16-7194

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7194

Doc: 30

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
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
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2