Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03164/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cortez D. Gillum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 4, 2010∗

 Decided February 9, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CORTEZ D. GILLUM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Central District of Illinois.

No. 02-30011

Jeanne E. Scott, Judge.

Order

Cortez Gillum pleaded guilty to a federal crime and was sentenced in 2002. He 

did not appeal or file a timely petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255. But of late he has filed 

multiple motions asking the district court for release. Last year we informed Gillum that

the district court is not authorized to consider these motions. United States v. Gillum, No. 

08-2348 (7th Cir. Mar. 3, 2009) (nonprecedential disposition). This did not deter Gillum 

from trying again.

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3164 Document: 17 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09-3164 Page 2

His latest motion contends that the district judge lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction. He appears to believe that this supplies an end around all of the statutes, 

rules, and doctrines that limit post-judgment challenges to criminal convictions. It does 

not. Jurisdictional arguments, like all others, must be presented before the judgment 

becomes final or the time for collateral review expires. Gillum also errs in supposing 

that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, on which his latest arguments rest, affects 

federal jurisdiction. Every indictment for a federal crime comes within the district 

courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. §3231; United States v. Martin, 147 F.3d 529 

(7th Cir. 1997). Whether or not the IAD afforded a full or partial defense to the charge 

does not affect the district court’s authority to resolve the dispute (which is what 

“subject-matter jurisdiction” means).

Gillum must understand that any further motions in the district court will expose 

him to sanctions, including not only a fine but also an order directing clerks to return 

his motions unfiled, unless the motion makes a bona fide effort to demonstrate that it is 

not only within the scope of 28 U.S.C. §2255 but also timely under the criteria of 

§2255(f)--and that it has been authorized under §2255(h) if any of Gillum’s prior 

motions is deemed to be a collateral attack. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 

(2003).

Case: 09-3164 Document: 17 Filed: 02/09/2010 Pages: 2