Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02156/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcos Mazzini
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: MARCOS MAZZINI, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2156

(D.C. No. 1:01-CR-00291-LH-1)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant Marcos Mazzini, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks an order 

authorizing him to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district 

court so he may assert a claim for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 

2551 (2015). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). The government filed a response.

The motion for authorization filed in this court on June 23, 2016, is denied as 

unnecessary because it appears Movant has not previously filed a § 2255 motion. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, we direct the Clerk to transfer the proposed § 2255 motion 

Movant submitted with his motion for authorization to the district court for the District of 

New Mexico for filing as an initial § 2255 motion.1

 The filing date for the § 2255 motion 

is the earlier of 1) the date the motion for authorization was received in this court, or 

 

1 In filing this document as a first § 2255 motion, the district court should provide 

Movant with any notice, warning, and opportunity for supplementation that may be 

required. See United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1240, 1242 (10th Cir. 2000); 

cf. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 25, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2156 Document: 01019662303 Date Filed: 07/25/2016 Page: 1 
2

2) the date the motion for authorization was delivered to prison authorities for mailing, if 

the district court determines Movant is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, 

see Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165-66 (10th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. App. P. 

25(a)(2)(C).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2156 Document: 01019662303 Date Filed: 07/25/2016 Page: 2