US v. Timothy Simms, No. 14-6039 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6039 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TIMOTHY EDWARD SIMMS, a/k/a DeNasty, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William N. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00355-WMN-4; 1:13-cv-02782-WMN) Submitted: August 20, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Edward Simms, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy court s order Edward Simms dismissing his seeks 28 without prejudice as successive. unless a circuit appealability. justice or to U.S.C. appeal § 2255 the district (2012) motion The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Simms has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent Simms moves in his informal brief for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2012) motion, such motion is denied. to file a successive § 2255 Finally, we dispense with oral 2 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.
