Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13027/USCOURTS-ca11-15-13027-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Geno Rolle
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-13027

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:09-cr-80094-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENO ROLLE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 3, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 1 of 3
2

Geno Rolle, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district 

court’s order denying his motion to correct a “clerical error,” ostensibly filed 

pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rolle, who was 

convicted in 2009 of illegal re-entry of a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) 

and (b)(2), argues that the motion, which the district court construed as an 

unauthorized successive motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was not a 

request to vacate the conviction, but a request to correct the indictment, which he 

contends incorrectly charged him with both entry and attempting to enter. 

Pursuant to § 2255, a prisoner in federal custody may move the court that 

imposed his sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence if it was imposed 

in violation of federal constitutional or statutory law, was imposed without proper 

jurisdiction, is in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject 

to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, when a prisoner previously 

has filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, he must apply for and receive permission from 

this Court before filing a successive § 2255 motion. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h).

Rolle’s motion, which explicitly requested that the district court vacate his 

sentence, was more aptly construed as a § 2255 motion to vacate. Therefore, as 

Rolle already had filed a prior § 2255 motion that was denied on the merits, the 

district court did not err in denying the instant motion as successive and 

unauthorized by this Court. See McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1329 

USCA11 Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 2 of 3
3

(11th Cir. 2002) (reviewing de novo the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as second or 

successive). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 3 of 3