Case ID: f-appx_169/html/0800-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roy Steve DAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-7898.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 10, 2006.
    Decided: March 6, 2006.
    See also 162 F.3d 1156.
    Roy Steve Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Owen Matthew Kendler, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Vacated by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Roy Steve Davis mailed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. While Davis directed his motion to this court, the district court improperly docketed the motion as one in that court under § 2255. The district court then entered an order construing the motion as one seeking authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion and denied it. Davis timely appealed.

Under § 2244, a motion seeking authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion “shall be determined by a three-judge panel of the court of appeals.” § 2244(b)(3)(B). Because Davis clearly sought authorization from this court under § 2244, the district court lacked jurisdiction to act on it. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order. By separate order entered this day, we direct that Davis’ § 2244 motion be filed and docketed in this court. We will then review and act on the motion in due course.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order. We deny Davis’ motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED