FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 17, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14711 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 1 0 8 - CR- 2 - RBP- RRA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M U E L W A L K E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 17, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S am uel W al ker, a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct2

c our t ’ s de ni a l of

hi s “ M ot i on t o C or r e c tU nl a w f ul S e nt e nc e . ” T he gove r nm e nt ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d o nl y a ss um e j uri sdi ct i on ov er W a l ke r ’ s m ot i on by c ons trui ng i ta s a m ot i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255, but tha ti tf a i l e d t o do s o, a nd, the r e f or e , di d notha ve j ur i s di c t i on. A l t e r na t i ve l y , the go vernm entar gu es thati f the m ot i on w as consi dere d as a§ 2 25 5 m ot i on , w e l ac k ju r is d ic tio n b e c a u s e W a lk e rd id n o t o b ta in a c e r tif ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility ( “C O A ” ) . B e c a us e w e a c c e ptboth of the gove r nm e nt ’ s a r gum e nt s , w e do nota ddr e s s the su b st an t i v e i ssu es. F eder al court s have a n “ ob l i gat i on t o l oo k b ehi nd the l abel of a m ot i on fi l ed by a p ro se i nm at e a nd det erm i ne w hether the m ot i on i s, i n eff ec t , cogn i zabl e und er a di ff er entre m edi al st atut ory f ra m ew ork. ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . J

or dan , 915 F . 2d 622, 62 4-25 (11t h C i r. 19 90 ). D oi ng so m ay al l ow a c ou rtt o avo i d an u nn ec es sa ry d i sm i ssal o r i n ap p ro p ri at el y stri n g en tap p l i cat i o n o f fo rm al l ab el i n g req u i rem en t s, o rto c r e a te a b e tte rc o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e tw e e n th e s u b s ta n c e o f th e m o tio n a n d its u n d e r ly in g le g a l b a s is . See C astro v. U ni t ed St at es , 5 4 0 U . S. 3 7 5 , 3 8 1 - 8 2 , 1 2 4 S. C t . 7 8 6 , 7 9 1 -9 2 , 1 5 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 7 8 (2 0 0 3 ). W h en a d i stri ctco u rtrech aract eri zes a pro se m ot i on as an i ni t i al § 2 25 5 m ot i on , i tm ustno t i fy the m ov antof the i nt ended r e c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on, a dvi s e hi m of the c ons e que nc e s of

s uc h r e c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on, a nd p r o v id e a n o p p o r tu n ity f o rth e m o tio n to b e w ith d r a w n o ra m e n d e d . Id . a t383, 124The district cour t’s order mere ly stated: “TheMotion to C orre ct Unlawf ul Sentence f

iled 1 by thede fend ant, Samue l Walker o n Jan ua ry 8, 20 05 is D EN IED . Thec ourt re itera te s th at it is of the opinion that the sentenc e is too harsh. How ever , the cour t has no authority

to reduc e it.” 3 S . C t . at79 2. If

the di stri ctcourtfa i l s t o d o so, the m ot i on ca nn otbe consi dere d as a n i ni t i a l § 2255 m ot i on f orpurpos e s of

de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra s ubs e que nt§ 2255 m o tio n is s e c o n d o rs u c c e s s iv e . Id . A C O A m us tbe i s s ue d i n or de rf ora n a ppl i c a ntt o appe a l a f i na l or de ri n a proceedi ng un der § 22 55 . 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 3(c) ; F ed. R . A pp . P . 22 (b)( 1). “ If an appl i c a ntf

i l e s a not i c e of

a ppe a l , the di s tr i c tj udge w ho r e nde r e d the j udgm e nt m us te i the ri s s ue a c e r t i f i c a t e of appe a l a bi l i ty ors t a t e w hy a c e r t i f i c a t e s houl d not i s s ue . ” F e d. R . A pp. P . 22( b) ( 1) . W e r e qui r e di s tr i c tc our t s t o tr e a ta not i c e of appe a l of a § 2255 m ot i on a s a n a ppl i c a t i on f ora C O A , a nd w e a l s o r e qui r e the di s tr i c tc our tt o rul e upon a n appl i c a t i on f ora C O A be f

or e w e w i l l c ons i de rs uc h a r e q u e s t. E dw ards v. U

ni t ed St at es , 11 4 F . 3d 10 83 , 10 84 (11t h C i r. 19 97 ) ( per curi am ). B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d W a l ke r ’ s m ot i on w i thoute xpl a i ni ng the s our c e of i t s j ur i s di c t i on orthe ba s i s on w hi c h i tm a de i t s de c i s i on, w e do notknow w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tc ons true d W a l ke r ’ s m ot i on a s a § 2255 m ot i on or w hether i tdeni ed the m ot i on on the basi s of s om e other a ut ho ri ty. W e there fore 1 vaca t e the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderand rem and t hi s c as e t o t he di stri ctcourtfor f urther4

pr oc e e di ngs . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our ts houl d e i the rs t a t e tha ti ti s c ons trui ng W al ker’ s m ot i on as a § 22 55 m ot i on , gi ve W al ker the C a stro w a r ni ngs , a nd c o n s tru e a n y s u b s e q u e n t n o tic e o f a p p e a l a s a n a p p lic a tio n f o ra C O A , o r , if

it c h o o s e s n o t to p r o c e e d u n d e r§ 2 2 5 5 , e ith e r( 1 ) e x p la in th e b a s is f o rits ju r is d ic tio n , o r( 2 ) d is m is s W a lk e r ’s m o tio n f o rla c k o f

ju r is d ic tio n . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.