Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06767/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06767-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Hugh Lindsey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6767 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 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. 

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.

Appeal: 13-6767 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Lindsey’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s disposition, Lindsey has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. 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

Appeal: 13-6767 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3