Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

Case No. 4:09cv-105-WS/WCS

KARIM SHAREEF MATEEN, 

a/k/a REGINALD MARCEL DENNIS,

Defendant.

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION

Defendant filed a "petition for redress of grievances." Doc. 1012. He presents

"constitutional grievances," claiming that the 1995 judgment "is NULL and VOID and

questionable due to numerous Constitutional violations." Id., p. 1. He claims, inter alia,

that he was never duly convicted, that the statutes set forth in the indictment were never

promulgated or printed in the Federal Register, that no crime exists, and the court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction. Id., pp. 1-2. For relief, Defendant asks the court "to

VACATE the sentence and conviction of petitioner, KARIM SHAREEF MATEEN." Id.,

p. 2. 

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 1016 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

1

 At least 12 grand jurors must concur to return an indictment. Fed.R.Crim.P.

6(f). The grand jury foreperson (or another juror designated) must record the number of

jurors concurring in every indictment and file the record with the clerk, but the record is

not released unless ordered by the court. Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(c). 

Case Nos. 4:93cr4028-WS and 4:09cv105-WS/WCS 

Defendant had recently filed a "demand for grand jury transcript," claiming that if

the court did not comply it would be deemed an admission that no indictment ever

existed. Doc. 1007. The request was denied: 

Defendant has not established a compelling and particular need for

disclosure of grand jury transcripts. See, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e); United

States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1347-49 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 543

U.S. 868 (2004). Defendant claims to doubt the existence of a grand jury

indictment in this case, so the clerk shall FORWARD a copy of Doc. 1 to

Defendant for his information. 

Doc. 1008. 

Defendant has now filed a "demand for concurrence form." Doc. 1013. He does

not claim that an insufficient number of jurors concurred in the indictment,1

 but that

failure to provide a copy is an admission by the court that no indictment ever existed. 

Id. Again, Defendant fails to demonstrate the need for disclosure of grand jury

materials. Even if he could allege a possible error which the grand jury materials would

support, as set forth ahead, he may not seek relief from the judgment and sentence at

this time. 

Defendant is "[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by

Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence

was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the

court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in

excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack." 

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 1016 Filed 03/25/09 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

Case Nos. 4:93cr4028-WS and 4:09cv105-WS/WCS 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Relief, if any, from his conviction and sentence would be by §

2255 motion filed in this court. 

Defendant's § 2255 motion was denied with prejudice years ago. See docs. 727,

731, 732, 743 and 770 (report and recommendation as adopted by the court, judgment

entered on January 25, 2001, and denial of a certificate of appealability by this court

and the Eleventh Circuit, respectively). Authorization from the Eleventh Circuit must be

obtained before filing a second or second § 2255 motion. § 2255(h); § 2255 Rule 9. 

Defendant has been advised of this requirement, that this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider a second or successive motion absent such authorization, and that he may not

evade the requirement by assigning a different label to what is essentially a second or

successive motion. See doc. 821 (order of December 31, 2003); docs. 826, 830-832

(report and recommendation as adopted and judgment entered on September 3, 2004);

docs. 844, 847 and 848 (report and recommendation as adopted and judgment entered

on June 22, 2005); and docs. 870, 875 and 876 (report and recommendation as

adopted and judgment entered on August 3, 2006). 

Defendant again seeks relief from the conviction and sentence, which is only

available pursuant to § 2255 despite the attempt to claim other authority for relief. The

filing of a second or successive § 2255 motion was not authorized by the Eleventh

Circuit, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. 

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 1016 Filed 03/25/09 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

Case Nos. 4:93cr4028-WS and 4:09cv105-WS/WCS 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for redress of

grievances (doc. 1012) be SUMMARILY DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or

successive § 2255 motion, that Defendant's demand for concurrence form (doc. 1013)

be DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 25, 2009.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case 4:93-cr-04028-WS-WCS Document 1016 Filed 03/25/09 Page 4 of 4