US v. Timothy Lindsey, No. 13-6767 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6767 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY HUGH LINDSEY, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a appealability. ∗ of U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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, review of the court’s order. Lindsey has forfeited appellate 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.
