Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06742/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06742-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth ONeal Timmons
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ONEAL TIMMONS, a/k/a Keno, a/k/a Kino,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:12-cr-00513-JFA-39; 3:15-cv-01651-JFA)

Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 16, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth ONeal Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, 

John David Rowell, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth ONeal Timmons seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 

Timmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also 

deny Timmons’ motions for appointment of counsel and a transcript 

at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6742 Doc: 17 Filed: 12/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3