UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Kana DAWSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35179, No. 18-35180, No. 18-35181
Decided: October 21, 2019
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Jennifer Jane Martin, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Suzanne Miles, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff - Appellee Stephen R. Sady, Attorney, Elizabeth Gillingham Daily, Attorney, FPDOR - Federal Public Defender's Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant - Appellant
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, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 203, 202 L.Ed.2d 139 (2018).
Dawson next contends that he is entitled to relief under Dean v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (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.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.