United States of America v. Timothy Kana Dawson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY KANA DAWSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-35179
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01284-SI
3:03-cr-00410-SI-1
No. 18-35180
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01285-SI
3:04-cr-00010-SI-1
No. 18-35181
D.C. Nos. 3:16-cv-01287-SI
3:05-cr-00073-SI-1
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).
FILED
OCT 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

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