UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CR-42-1-TLS-SLC 

 1:20-CV-98-TLS 

FREDDIE L. CHURCH, JR. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [ECF No. 347], filed by Defendant 

Freddie L. Church, Jr. on February 28, 2020. The Defendant is serving a sentence for attempting 

to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and (b) and for 

carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c). The Defendant now seeks to vacate his conviction and sentence under § 924(c) based on 

the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). 

 However, the Defendant previously filed a Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

[ECF No. 322], which the Court denied on April 17, 2019 [ECF No. 338], and declined to issue a 

certificate of appealability. As a result, the Defendant’s instant Motion to Vacate is a second or 

successive motion. “A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 

by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). “Without authorization 

from the court of appeals, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition.” Suggs v. 

United States, 705 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152–

53, (2007)); United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that, unless 

the defendant “seeks and obtains permission from the court of appeals to file [a second or 

successive] motion, the district court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request” (citing 

Nuñez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996)). Here, it does not appear that the 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00042-TLS-SLC document 364 filed 02/25/21 page 1 of 2
2 

Defendant has obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file this successive petition, and 

thus, this Court cannot review the merits of the Defendant’s arguments. 

NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

 The Court must “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order 

adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. A 

certificate of appealability may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Rule 11 of the Rules 

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The substantial showing standard is met when “reasonable 

jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been 

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting 

Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Where, as here, “a plain procedural bar is 

present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 

could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 

petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Therefore, the Court will not issue the 

Defendant a certificate of appealability. 

CONCLUSION 

 Because the Defendant has not obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file a 

second habeas motion, the Court DISMISSES FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION the Defendant’s 

Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal 

Custody [ECF No. 347]. 

SO ORDERED on February 25, 2021. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cr-00042-TLS-SLC document 364 filed 02/25/21 page 2 of 2