Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_05-cv-08087/USCOURTS-alnd-1_05-cv-08087-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentenc

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CV NO. 05-CO-8087-E

) CR NO. 93-N-150-E

TAMIKO CANNON )

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

On November 16, 2005 Tamiko Cannon filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

by a Person in Federal Custody or Sentenced to Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Despite

Cannon’s assertion to the contrary, she previously filed a § 2255 motion on January 8, 1998 (doc. #240)

which was denied on November 30, 1998 (doc. #267). No appeal was taken from the denial of the § 2255

motion.

The motion before this court is therefore a second or successive motion. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255

provides in pertinent part:

A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section

2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain–

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of

the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously

unavailable.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:

Before a second or successive application permitted by this

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order

authorizing the district court to consider the application.

FILED

 2005 Nov-22 PM 05:29

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:05-cv-08087-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 2
2

In Hill v. Harper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11 Cir.), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1203 (1997) the Court th

of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that where the petitioner had not applied to it for permission to

file a second habeas petition the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to

consider petitioner’s request for relief.

This action is due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A separate order consistent with this

Memorandum of Opinion will be entered simultaneously herewith.

As to the foregoing it is SO ORDERED this the 22nd day of November, 2005.

 

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

Case 1:05-cv-08087-LSC-PWG Document 2 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2