United States v. Timothy Lindsey , 591 F. App'x 219 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6767
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TIMOTHY HUGH LINDSEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
    District Judge. (5:08-cr-00091-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00350-BR)
    Submitted:   January 16, 2015             Decided:   February 2, 2015
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Hugh Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely 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.”            
    28 U.S.C. § 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.                 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
    .
    On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
    in the Appellant’s brief.                    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).              Because
    ∗
    Our recent decision in Whiteside v. United States, __ F.3d
    __, 
    2014 WL 7245453
     (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2014) (en banc), confirms
    the correctness of the decision of the district court in this
    case.
    2
    Lindsey’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
    district   court’s   disposition,    Lindsey   has   forfeited   appellate
    review of the court’s order.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.         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.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6767

Citation Numbers: 591 F. App'x 219

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Agee

Filed Date: 2/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024