US v. Windsor Kessler, III, No. 16-7194 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7194 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WINDSOR WARNER KESSLER, III, Defendant -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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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.