UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Edward Simms seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
without prejudice as successive. 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 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) to file a successive § 2255
motion, such motion is denied. 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