Case ID: f-appx_608/html/0910-01.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

Delvin McKINNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-11529
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    June 26, 2015.
    Delvin McKinney, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Nicole D. Mariani, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Delvin McKinney was convicted of six drug-trafficking offenses, which included distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and playground area. On July 21, 2005, the District Court sentenced McKinney to concurrent prison terms of life imprisonment on one count and 360 months on the remaining counts, and imposed a special assessment of $600 ($100 on each count). McKinney appealed his convictions, and we affirmed. United States v. McKinney, 219 Fed.Appx. 921 (11th Cir.2007). On February 22, 2008, McKinney filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and requested an evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied McKinney’s motion. And, on February 17, 2009, we affirmed the District Court’s decision. United States v. McKinney, 312 Fed.Appx. 247 (11th Cir.2009).

On March 5, 2008, McKinney moved the District Court to vacate his convictions and sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court denied the motion on May 6, 2008. And, on April 6, 2009, we denied a certificate of appealability. On January 27, 2014, McKinney moved the District Court for leave to amend the motion he filed on March 5, 2008. The District Court denied the motion on January 30, 2014, as an attempt to file a successive § 2255 motion without obtaining leave of the Court of Appeals. McKinney now appeals from that decision.

The District Court was correct that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain McKinney’s successive § 2255 motion. To file such a motion in the District Court, McKinney must first obtain leave of this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . While his appeal was pending, McKinney filed several motions for a new trial. All were denied.