NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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