IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10694

c/w No. 14-10702

In re: JAMIE PERKINS,

Movant

Motions for an order authorizing

the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Dallas to consider

a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

Cons. w/No. 14-10801

No. 14-10801

USDC No. 3:14-CV-2183

USDC No. 3:97-CR-55-21

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JAMIE PERKINS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas, Dallas

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2015
No. 14-10694

c/w No. 14-10702

c/w No. 14-10801

2

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated matter, Jamie Perkins, federal prisoner # 46483-

177, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court’s 

order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to this court as an unauthorized 

second or successive § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. 

Perkins also seeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. In these 

various motions, Perkins seeks to challenge his guilty plea conviction on, as 

relevant here, several weapons-related charges for which the district court 

sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment on a charge involving a shotgun 

and 20 years of imprisonment on a charge involving a pistol. In connection 

with his claims, Perkins also seeks appointment of counsel and leave to amend 

his motions for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We have recently held that the transfer of an unauthorized § 2255 

motion is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and, therefore, 

Perkins does not need to obtain a COA to appeal the district court’s transfer of 

his § 2255 motion. See United States v. Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 

2015). Nonetheless, we have also recently rejected the contention Perkins

makes here that his § 2255 motion is not successive because he filed it after he 

was resentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) which occurred after Perkins 

filed his first § 2255 motion. See United States v. Jones, 796 F.3d 483, 486 (5th 

Cir. 2015). We therefore affirm the district court’s transfer of Perkins’s § 2255 

motion to this court based on it being a successive motion.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2015
No. 14-10694

c/w No. 14-10702

c/w No. 14-10801

3

We may authorize the filing of such a successive § 2255 motion only if 

Perkins makes a prima facie showing that his proposed claims rely on either 

(1) “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the 

evidence as a whole,” would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no 

reasonable factfinder would have found her guilty of the offense; or (2) “a new 

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the 

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 897-98 

(5th Cir. 2001). Perkins does not assert that he has newly discovered evidence,

and we have rejected his contention that Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 

2151 (2013), is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See In re 

Kemper, 735 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 2013). Our holding in Kemper applies 

equally to Perkins’s proposed new claim in his motion to amend the motion for 

leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, and his proposed amendment is 

therefore futile. See 735 F.3d at 212. Perkins has not made the required 

showing under § 2244(b)(3)(C) for authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Perkins’s motion for a COA in matter no. 14-10801

is DENIED as unnecessary, his motions for authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion in matters no. 14-10694 & 14-10702 are DENIED 

under §2255(h), his motion for leave to amend his motion for authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion is DENIED as futile, his motion for 

appointment of counsel is DENIED likewise, and the district court’s transfer 

of Perkins’s unauthorized successive § 2255 motion in matter no. 14-10801 is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2015