US v. Timothy Scaife, No. 14-6488 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6488 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIMOTHY LEE SCAIFE, a/k/a Timothy John Scaife, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cr-00376-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00163-REP) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Lee Scaife, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Norval George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Scaife denying relief seeks appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent a of appealability. (2012) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. his district court s judge on to 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scaife has not made the requisite showing. deny Scaife s certificate dispense of with motion for appointment appealability, and oral because argument 2 of dismiss the Accordingly, we counsel, the deny appeal. facts and a We 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.
