Timothy Wims v. Warden


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000029173-2] Originating case number: 0:16-cv-02302-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000156196]. Mailed to: Timothy Wims. [17-6224]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6224 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6224 TIMOTHY WIMS, a/k/a Timothy Derrinado Davis, a/k/a John Darren Delgado, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:16-cv-02302-RBH) Submitted: August 29, 2017 Decided: September 15, 2017 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Wims, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6224 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/15/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Wims, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm. See Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 894-95 (2017) (United States Sentencing Guidelines not subject to void for vagueness challenge and therefore Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), did not invalidate the residual clause of the definition of a crime of violence under the Guidelines). We 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 2

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?