FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L25, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1370 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N os. 04-00067 -CV -1-D HB & 92-0010 8 CR-1-D RAY MON D O UT LE R, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Apr il 25, 200 5)
Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The Gove rnment ar gues that, bec ause the instant § 2255 moti on was untimely , the 1 dis tr ic t c ourt ’s c on c lus ion thi s mo tio n w a s su c c e ssi ve wa s h arm le ss e rr or . We de c lin e to a dd re ss thi s argume nt b e c a

us e it i s o uts ide of

the sc op e of

the CO A. Ho we ve r, the Go ve rnme nt i s f re e to ra ise the tim e lin e ss i ssu e on re mand . T he dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld h ave the op po rt

un ity to a dd re ss this argument in the first instance a nd make a

ppropriate fac tual finding s. 2 Fe de ra l pr iso ne r Raym ond O utl er appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U
. S. C. § 22 55 m oti on c ha lle ngi ng h is c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc es . I n 19 95, O utl er f ile d am oti on unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 33 c ha lle ngi ng h is
co nvi ct ion s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ec hara ct er iz ed thi s m oti on a s a§ 22 55 m oti on and de nie d it
. Whe n O utl er

f ile d a§ 22 55 m oti on atta ck ing his c onvi ct ionin 2004 , the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed

thi s m oti on a s su cc es siv e. W e iss ue d ac er tif ic at e of appealability

(CO A) on the following is sue: Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt vi olate d Castro v. U nited States , 124 S. Ct. 786 (200 3), by treating appellant's ins tant 2 8 U
. S. C. § 22 55 m oti on a s im pe rm iss ibl y suc ce ssi ve w he n th e co urt c onstru ed appe llant' s pr ev iou s Federa l Rule of Cr im inal Procedure 33 m otion for a new tr ia l a s a ppe llant' s “ fi rs t” § 22 55 m oti on w ith out inf orm ing him

of the c onse que nc es of

the re ch ar ac te ri zatio n or

giv ing him

the opp ortun ity

to w ith dr awor

a m en d th e m oti on t o di sm iss ? Neit he r pa rty has m ov edto ex pa ndth e COA. Ou t l erco n t en d s th at , b ec au s e h e d i dn o tre ce i v e n o t i ce o f t h e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s
re ch ar ac te ri zatio n of

his 199 5 m oti on and d id n ot h av e anopp ortun ity to am en d or withdrawit, this m otion did no t render his 2004 m otion successive. 13

Ac ri m ina l de fe ndant m ay not f ile ase co nd o r suc ce ssi ve § 22 55 m oti on
un le ss he fir strece iv es lea ve to do so fro m th e ap pr op ria te co ur t o f ap pe al s. U nited Sta tes v . G arc ia , 181 F. 3d 12 74, 1275 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). O f course, for a § 22 55 m oti on t o be suc ce ssi ve , the de fe ndant m ust have f ile d apr ev iou s § 2 255
m oti on. I n Ca st ro , the Suprem e Court placed lim its upo n when a pro se ple ad ing
w hic h adis tr ic t c ourt r ec hara ct iz es a s a§ 22 55 m oti on w ill r en de r subs eque nt § 225 5 m otion s successive.

[W ] hen a district court rechar acter izes a pro se l i t i g an t ’s m otion as a f

irst § 255 5 m otion
. . . the district court m ust no tify the pro se li tig an t tha t i t i nte nds to re ch ar ac te ri ze the ple ad ing , w ar n th e lit igant tha t this re ch ar ac te ri zatio n m eans tha t any sub se que nt § 225 5 m oti on w ill be sub

j ec t t o th e re str ic tio ns o n “ se co nd o r successive” m otion s, and provide the litigant an oppo rtunity

to withdrawthe m otion or to am end it so th at it co nta ins a ll the § 22 55 c la im s he be lie ve s he ha s. I f the co urt f ai ls t o do so, the m oti on c annot be c onsi de re d to have be co m e a § 22 55 m oti on f or pur pose s of appl y ing to later m otion s the law’ s “ second or successive” re str ic tio ns. Ca str o , 124 S
. Ct
. a t 79 2. T he r ec or d c ont ai ns n o in dic at ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt a ppr ise d O utl er

of it s int en tio n to r ec hara ct er iz e his 199 5 m oti on, w hic h w as f ile d un de r Fe de ra l R

ule of Crim inal Procedure 33, as a § 2255 m otion
. Furtherm ore, it does not appear O utl er w as e ve r w ar

ne d hi s 19 95 m oti on w oul d r en de r subs eque nt § 225 5 m oti ons4

su cces si ve or wa s g iv enan op po rtu ni ty to am en d o r wit hd raw t hi s m ot io n. Ac cordingly , the 1995 m otion did no t render the instant § 225 5 m otion successive. Beca use the district court erred by dism issin g Outler’ s § 225 5 m otion as successive, w e vacate its order dism issin g Outler’ s m otion , and rem and for further proceedings. W e express no opin ion on whether Outler’ s m otion wa s tim ely , an iss ue w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt m ay c onsi de r on r em an d. VACATED AND REMANDED.