Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02367/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02367-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CR. S-88-0272 WBS

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-06-2367 WBS

v. ORDER

BILLY FRANK COX, 

Defendant.

----oo0oo---- 

Defendant Billy Frank Cox filed a document entitled

“Petition for Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. Section 2241; U.S.

Constitution, Fifth Amendment)” in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of California, on October 25,

2006. The asserted basis for the petition was that this court

determined a fact for sentencing purposes which was

constitutionally required to be found by the jury.

Because defendant’s conviction arose out of this

district, the matter was transferred to this court. Currently

before the court are (1) a motion of the defendant to transfer the

matter back to the Northern District of California, where he is

currently confined, and (2) a motion by the United States to

dismiss the petition as an unauthorized successive petition under

Case 2:06-cv-02367-WBS Document 4 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See Clerk’s Docket Nos. 480 (motion pursuant to § 1

2255); 495 (order denying 2255 motion, filed May 1, 1998); 509

(second order denying 2255 motion); 526 (first successive 2255

petition); 548 (new 2255 petition); 573 )order denying new 2255

petition).

2

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court denies defendant’s motion and grants

the government’s motion to dismiss.

First, the matter was properly transferred to this

court. Although the action may be captioned as a habeas corpus

petition attacking how the sentence is being executed, it is

clearly an attempt to have defendant’s sentence vacated or set

aside, and as such it is properly considered under 18 U.S.C. §

2255. Second, the petition is clearly a successive section 2255

petition. Under section 2255, no second or successive motion or 1

petition may be considered unless it is certified by the Court of

Appeals to contain newly discovered evidence or a new rule of

constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 

Here, no such certificate has been issued by the Court of Appeals.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

retransmit this matter to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California be, and the same hereby is,

DENIED;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government’s motion

to dismiss the instant petition be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED.

DATED: December 4, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-02367-WBS Document 4 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 2