United States v. Timothy Dawson

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 21, 2019
Docket18-35179
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Timothy Dawson (United States v. Timothy Dawson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Timothy Dawson, (9th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-35179

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01284-SI 3:03-cr-00410-SI-1

No. 18-35180

v. D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01285-SI 3:04-cr-00010-SI-1

No. 18-35181

TIMOTHY KANA DAWSON, D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01287-SI 3:05-cr-00073-SI-1 Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). In these consolidated appeals, Timothy Dawson appeals from the district

court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Dawson contends that his bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a) does not qualify as a predicate crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c). This argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Watson, 881 F.3d 782

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 203 (2018).

Dawson next contends that he is entitled to relief under Dean v. United

States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017). This contention also fails. Contrary to Dawson’s

contention, Dean did not announce a substantive rule that applies retroactively to

cases on collateral review. See Garcia v. United States, 923 F.3d 1242, 1245-46

(9th Cir. 2019). Dean, therefore, does not satisfy section 2255(f)(3), and Dawson’s

claim was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1).

Appellee’s motions for summary affirmance are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35179 & 18-35180 & 18-35181

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dean v. United States
581 U.S. 62 (Supreme Court, 2017)
United States v. Marcus Watson
881 F.3d 782 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Garcia v. United States
923 F.3d 1242 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Timothy Dawson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-timothy-dawson-ca9-2019.