Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20131114_0000645.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-02-24 19:24:14
Document Index: 692458371

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

| Cross v. United States
ANTON NELSON CROSS, Movant,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
This matter appears before the court on Anton Nelson Cross's pro se filing, which the clerk's office correctly construed as a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (docket no. 1). Anton Nelson Cross ("the movant") filed his § 2255 motion on November 14, 2013. The movant previously sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and, before filing the instant action, the movant did not move the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for authorization allowing the court to file and consider a second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:
"This rule is absolute." Boykin v. United States, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27076 at *1-3, 2000 WL 1610732 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam unpublished opinion) (vacating judgment regarding 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and remanding case to district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662, 116 S.Ct. 2333, 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)); Vancleave v. Norris, 150 F.3d 926, 927-28 (8th Cir. 1998) (same). Accordingly, the movant's instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion shall be dismissed.[1]
The movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (docket no. ...