Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-11404/USCOURTS-ca5-13-11404-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Hill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID HILL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-4456

USDC No. 3:03-CR-159-2

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury found David Hill, federal prisoner # 30777-177, guilty of 

conspiracy to manufacture and possess with the intent to distribute 

methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and five 

years of supervised release. The district court denied Hill’s initial 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. Hill filed a subsequent § 2255 motion challenging his 

methamphetamine conviction, which the district court transferred to this court 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-11404 Document: 00513274724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2015
No. 13-11404

2

as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re 

Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997).

Hill requests a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he may 

challenge the district court’s order transferring his § 2255 motion to this court.

He argues that the § 2255 remedy is ineffective and the district court’s transfer 

to this court was unnecessary. He contends, inter alia, that he should have 

been permitted to proceed under “new law” set forth in Alleyne v. United States, 

133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013).

A transfer order to cure want of jurisdiction, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1631, is not a “final order” as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See United 

States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed (July

21, 2015) (No.15-6348). Thus, “the appeal of such an order does not require a 

COA.” Fulton, 780 F.3d at 688. We therefore deny Hill’s motion for a COA as 

unnecessary.

Additionally, although Alleyne and Perkins were both decided in 2013, 

after the district court denied Hill’s initial § 2255 motion, the timing of those 

decisions alone does not render the instant motion non-successive. See Fulton, 

780 F.3d at 685. The underlying defects about which Hill complains, including 

his claim of actual innocence, are sentencing challenges and challenges to the 

effectiveness of his trial counsel. As these alleged defects and the facts 

necessary to support the claims were known to Hill at trial and sentencing and 

prior to when he filed his initial § 2255 motion, the instant motion is 

successive, regardless of the date of the Supreme Court decisions upon which 

Hill relies. See Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214, 221-24 (5th Cir. 

2009); Crone v. Cockrell, 324 F.3d 833, 837 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, the district 

court properly concluded that Hill’s § 2255 motion was an unauthorized 

 Case: 13-11404 Document: 00513274724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2015
No. 13-11404

3

successive § 2255 motion and properly transferred the motion to this court. See

§ 2255(h); Epps, 127 F.3d at 365.

MOTION FOR COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; TRANSFER 

ORDER AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-11404 Document: 00513274724 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2015