Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Timothy Governor Alexander, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Timothy Governor Alexander's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Alexander did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right or that the issues presented were debatable. As such, the court denied Alexander's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-8089

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Timothy Governor Alexander's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Alexander did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right or that the issues presented were debatable. As such, the court denied Alexander's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views3 pages

    United States v. Timothy Governor Alexander, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion dismissing Timothy Governor Alexander's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Alexander did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right or that the issues presented were debatable. As such, the court denied Alexander's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-8089

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge.
    (3:04-cr-00197-RJC-DCK-1; 3:10-cv00324-RJC)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2013

    Decided: March 1, 2013

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Timothy Governor Alexander, Appellant Pro Se.


    Amy Elizabeth
    Ray,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Asheville,
    North
    Carolina; Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
    ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy
    district

    courts

    Governor
    order

    Alexander

    denying

    as

    2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.


    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    seeks

    to

    untimely

    his

    appeal
    28

    the

    U.S.C.A.

    The order is not appealable

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    of

    A certificate

    of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2006).

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    assessment

    of

    constitutional

    wrong.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    the

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    claims

    district
    is

    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    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.

    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude


    that Alexander has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly,

    we deny Alexanders motion for 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

    You might also like