Timms v. U.S.

Full title: ROBERT TIMMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division

Date published: Jun 24, 2009

CIVIL NO.: WDQ-08-2607, CRIMINAL NO.: WDQ-05-508 (D. Md. Jun. 24, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL NO.: WDQ-08-2607, CRIMINAL NO.: WDQ-05-508.

June 24, 2009

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM QUARLES, District Judge

Pending is Robert Timms's motion for a certificate of appealability. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

I. Background

On October 25, 2005, Timms was charged in a one count indictment with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base ("crack" cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Paper No. 12. On June 28, 2006, a jury convicted Timms of the lesser included charge of simple possession of 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Paper No. 39. On September 26, 2006, Timms was sentenced to 135 months imprisonment. Paper No. 47.

On October 9, 2007, Timms's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Timms, No. 06-5049 (4th Cir. June 18, 2007). On December 3, 2008, Timms filed a motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Paper No. 71. On May 1, 2009, the Court denied Timms's motion. On May 18, 2009, Timms filed this motion for a certificate of appealability.

II. Analysis

Timms seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of his initial § 2255 motion. "A certificate of appealability will not issue absent `a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.'" Williams v. Smith, No. 08-6154, 2009 WL 33569, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 7, 2009); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is "debatable or wrong." Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004); Williams, 2009 WL 33569, at *1.

Timms merely repeats his arguments from his § 2255 motion, and does not discuss the Court's rationale.¹ He has not shown that the Court's decision was debatable or wrong; thus, his motion will be denied.

1 Timms again argues that his counsel's performance was deficient because he: (1) failed to recover a videotape of Timms's arrest, and (2) did not object to Timms's conviction of possession of cocaine when Timms had been indicted for possession with intent to distribute. Paper No. 85 at 2. Timms also repeats his objection to his counsel's trial strategy. Id.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, Timms's motion for a certificate of appealability will be denied.