IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PEDRO PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 )

v. ) CRIMINAL NO. 11-0011-WS-C

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 )

Respondent. )

ORDER

This closed matter comes before the Court on defendant’s filing styled “Request 

Permission to Withdraw a Guilty Plea Pursuant Section 2241, and for Attorney Pursuant Sec.

3000(A)” (doc. 159).

In June 2011, defendant, Pedro Perez-Hernandez, entered a guilty plea, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (See doc. 19.) Beginning shortly before his sentencing hearing, and 

continuing through the present day, Perez-Hernandez has repeatedly sought to have his guilty 

plea set aside. Both this Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals have examined these 

legal challenges in substantial detail, and have denied his challenges to the validity of his guilty 

plea. See, e.g., docs. 48, 84, 146, 148, 149. Most recently, the undersigned entered an Order on 

April 22, 2016, summarizing defendant’s persistent and meritless efforts as follows:

“The bottom line is this: Perez-Hernandez has spent nearly five years trying to 

withdraw and set aside his guilty plea. Despite all of his arguments and 

protestations, however, he has failed to meet his heavy burden of making the 

requisite showing under Rule 11(d)(2)(B), Fed.R.Crim.P. The undersigned 

remains convinced that petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and 

voluntarily, for reasons stated in this Court’s previous rulings, the Eleventh 

Circuit’s opinion on direct appeal, and the Report and Recommendation.”

(Doc. 158, at 3.)

In his current Motion, Perez-Hernandez seeks to relitigate his request to withdraw his 

guilty plea yet again. He has unsuccessfully pursued such a request multiple times. The issue 

Case 1:11-cr-00011-WS-C Document 160 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 2
-2-

has been fully and finally litigated several times over. Framing his current “Request” as one to 

the Clerk of Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 does not grant him license to relitigate this 

frivolous issue yet again, after it has been repeatedly, definitively resolved against him, including 

on direct appeal and, most recently, in his failed § 2255 motion. See, e.g., Stoufflet v. United 

States, 757 F.3d 1236, 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (“we conclude that Stoufflet is procedurally barred 

from relitigating the voluntariness of his plea in a motion to vacate his sentence because he has 

already raised that issue in his direct appeal”); United States v. Nyhuis, 211 F.3d 1340, 1343 (11th

Cir. 2000) (“The district court is not required to reconsider claims of error that were raised and 

disposed of on direct appeal. ... [O]nce a matter has been decided adversely to a defendant on 

direct appeal it cannot be re-litigated in a collateral attack ....”) (citations and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Besides, defendant’s motion, though nominally brought under § 2241, is really

an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion because Perez-Hernandez is challenging the 

validity of his sentence. See generally Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 

2005) (“a petitioner who has filed and been denied a previous § 2255 motion may not circumvent 

the successive motion restrictions simply by filing a petition under § 2241”).

As for defendant’s request for appointment of counsel, he attaches a copy of a “Request 

for Appointment Counsel” that was previously filed in this District Court back on August 21, 

2014. (See doc. 118.) Magistrate Judge Cassady denied that request via Order (doc. 121) dated 

September 12, 2014. There are no new circumstances or considerations that would warrant 

revisiting that decision today, much less appointing a lawyer to help Perez-Hernandez pursue a 

claim to withdraw his guilty plea, where such claim has been thoroughly examined and 

definitively rejected multiple times already.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s “Request Permission to Withdraw a Guilty 

Plea Pursuant Section 2241, and for Attorney Pursuant Sec. 3000(a)” (doc. 159) is denied as 

repetitive, abusive and frivolous. The Court further certifies that any appeal would be frivolous 

and would not be taken in good faith, such that Perez-Hernandez will not be allowed to appeal in 

forma pauperis from this ruling.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00011-WS-C Document 160 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2