US v. Ahmad Tomlinson, No. 12-7463 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7463 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AHMAD RASHAD TOMLINSON, a/k/a Tank, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00285-BO-1; 5:11-cv-00565-BO) Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson, Appellant Pro Se. Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Jennifer P. MayStates Attorneys, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ahmad Rashad Tomlinson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. conspiracy to distribute and Tomlinson was convicted of to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced as a career offender in May 2006 to 180 months imprisonment. He did not file a direct appeal. In challenging 2011, his Tomlinson career filed offender this designation § 2255 in motion light of the Supreme Court s opinion in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), and our opinion in United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The district court held that Carachuri-Rosendo was retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review and that Tomlinson was entitled to equitable tolling to assert his claim under Simmons, but that ultimately Tomlinson s claim failed on the merits. At the time the district court issued its decision denying § 2255 relief, it did not have the benefit of our recent opinion in United States v. Powell, 691 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2012), where we held that Carachuri-Rosendo is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. 691 F.3d at 559-60. 2 In untimely. light of Powell, Tomlinson s § 2255 motion is 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
