Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK

EVERETTE JAMEL TAYLOR,

Defendant.

________________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 969, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Defendant Taylor’s Motion to Recall Judgment, Doc.

954, be denied as an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition. The Magistrate Judge

filed the Report and Recommendation on Friday, August 3, 2007. The parties have been

furnished a copy of the Report and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. 

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo

review of those portions to which an objection has been made. 

Defendant was charged and convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine and crack cocaine, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed his

sentence and conviction, which were affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit. After this, Defendant

filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, raising many of the same grounds presented in

the instant motion. The Court denied the motion to vacate, and the Eleventh Circuit denied

Defendant’s request for a certificate of appealability for failure to make a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right, and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

In his Motion to Recall Judgment, Doc. 954, Defendant argues that the Court was without

jurisdiction to try him for the offense of conviction, that fraud was perpetrated upon the Court,

Case 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK Document 972 Filed 08/27/07 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK

and that he is actually innocent of the charged offense. The gist of these claims is that the

indictment was fundamentally defective and failed to give Defendant notice of the statutorilymandated life sentence. To get around the prohibition on filing an unauthorized second or

successive habeas petition, Defendant states that jurisdictional matters can be raised at any time,

and that sole purpose of the instant motion is to recall the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. §

2255 motion because of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. As the Magistrate points out, regardless

of the styling of a claim, if it seeks to relitigate claims presented in a prior habeas application, the

prohibition on second or successive motions to vacate applies. It is clear that Defendant is

attempting to evade this prohibition, as the basis for his argument on the Court’s jurisdiction has

been repeatedly raised and repeatedly rejected. Therefore, having considered the Report and

Recommendation, and the objections thereto, I have determined that it should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and

incorporated herein.

2. Defendant’s Motion to Recall Judgment, Doc. 954, is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of August, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01011-MP-AK Document 972 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2