United States v. Timothy Dawson
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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Timothy Dawson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-timothy-dawson-ca9-2019.