Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11529/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11529-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11529

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-60347-WPD

DELVIN MCKINNEY, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 26, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Delvin McKinney was convicted of six drug-trafficking offenses, which 

USCA11 Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

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 F. 

App’x. 921 (11th Cir. 2007).1

 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 F. 

App’x. 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 

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

denied.

USCA11 Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

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.

USCA11 Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 3 of 3