Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20171106_0002511.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-05-23 07:26:35
Document Index: 565393349

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2244', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2244']

This matter comes before the Court for consideration of the virtually identical motions filed by Petitioner Anthony Gene Trappier, both entitled “Motion to Re-Open.” ECF Nos. 205, 208. Because these motions challenge his underlying conviction and sentence, the Court construes them as petitions for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the petitions.
Undeterred, Petitioner filed another motion in the Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for permission to file a successive petition under § 2255, but the Fourth Circuit again denied the motion. In re: Anthony Trappier, No. 17-154 (4th Cir.), ECF No. 2, 7.
Petitioner next filed motions entitled “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6), ” ECF No. 188, and “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), ” ECF No. 189, which the Court construed as successive § 2255 petitions and dismissed on that basis, ECF No. 191. The Fourth Circuit agreed with the Court's construal of these motions as successive petitions, denied him permission to file a successive petition, and affirmed. Trappier v. United States, F. App'x, No. 17-6833, ECF No. 8 (4th Cir. Oct. 24, 2017).
Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 petitions on August 25, 2017 and October 26, 2017, in which he generally challenges his convictions and sentences. He has not received permission from the Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file these successive petitions.