2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-19-2009 

# U SA v . Leo Lloyd P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3489

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . L e o Llo yd " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1720. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/17201

H L D - 46 ( F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 9 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3489

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. L E O L L OYD, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 07- cr - 195) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed fora C ert i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i tyorPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on

P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

February27, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

(O p inion fil ed M arc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

I n Sept ember2007, the appe l l ant , L eo Ll oy d, pl eade d gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm bya convi ct ed fe l on. See 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) . T heW e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 1 2 D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d L l oy d t o a t erm of 110 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e.

S oo n ther eaft er, L l oy d, proceed i ng pro se, fi l ed a m oti on i den t i fi ed as a “m o ti o n p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ri m inal P roc ed u re 3 2 (e)(2).” (D ist . C t. D k t. # 3 2 . ) In hi s m oti on , L l oy d ch al l eng ed the con st i tuti on al i tyof h i s det enti on on vari ou s ground s, inclu d ing that h e h ad rec eive d inef fe cti v e a ssist an ce o f c o u n sel. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t th e m o tio n s h o u ld h a v e b e e n f ile d a s a m o tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255, and, pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l er , 197 F. 3d 644 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , di r ect ed L l oy d t o i nform the courtw hether“he c ons ent [ed] t o r ecl as s i fi cat i on of hi s . . . m ot i on as a pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255, orw hetherhe w i s he[d] t o r es ubm i thi s pet i t i on, inclu d ing the s am e o r ad d it ion al claim s, o n the s tand ard § 2 2 5 5 fo rm . ” (D ist . C t. O rde r, M ay5 , 2 0 0 8 , D k t. # 3 3 . ) In resp o n se, L loy d su b m itted a § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n o n the s tand ard fo rm . (D ist . C t. D k t. # 3 5 . ) B ec au se h e c h o se to resu b m ith is pe ti ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt th e n e n ter e d a n o rd e r d ism iss in g a s m o o t L lo y d ’s p re v io u slyf iled “ m o tio n p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 3 2 (e )(2 ).” ( D ist. C t. D k t. # 3 7 .) L lo y d n o w a p p e a ls fro m that o rde r. 1

I n hi s not i ce of

appea l , L l oy d s t at es thathe s eeks r evi ew of the D i s tr i ct Co u r t ’ s o r d e r“ d e n y i n g th e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d ( S e n t e n c e M o d i f i c a t i o n ) p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2255. ” ( D i s t . C t . D kt . # 38. ) T hus , i tappea r s thatL l oy d bel i eves thathe has beenA cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi s notnece s s aryforthe purpos e of thi s appea l . See 28 2 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (a ). 3 d e n ied h a b e a s re lief. A s n o ted a b o v e , h o w e v e r, th e o rd e r f ro m w h ich L lo y d a p p e a ls s i m pl ydi s m i s s ed hi s i ni t i al fi l i ng as m ooti n l i ghtof the pr oper l yfi l ed § 2255 mot i on t hat fol l ow ed; L l oy d’ s § 2255 i s s t i l l pendi ng i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . A s s uch, w e s ee no e rr or in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.

B e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a s u b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af

f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r. S e e T h ir d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . 2