Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180716_0003004.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 06:20:19
Document Index: 590193542

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2244', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2253', '§ 636']

FindACase™ | Roberts v. United States
Roberts v. United States
ANGELLICA ROBERTS, Movant,
Angellica Roberts pleaded guilty to one count of distributing cocaine base in November 2009. Doc. 12.[1] Her current motion seeks to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence because she contends that her plea agreement was constitutionally defective. See generally doc. 46. Because this is, at least, Roberts' second § 2255 motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it without permission from the Eleventh Circuit.
To file a second or successive § 2255 motion, movant first had to file an application with the Eleventh Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the motion.[2] 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). A panel of the court of appeals must certify that the second or successive motion contains:
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). “Without authorization” from the court of appeals, a “district court lack[s] jurisdiction to consider [a movant's] second or successive” motion. Carter v. United States, 405 Fed.Appx. 409, 410 (11th Cir. 2010).
Roberts filed her original § 2255 motion in 2016. See doc. 29. The Court found that it was time-barred and failed on the merits. Doc. 30 (recommending denial of § 2255 motion as untimely), adopted doc. 38. Such a disposition renders any subsequent § 2255 motions successive. See Villanueva v. United States, 346 F.3d 55, 61 (2nd Cir. 2003) (holding “a habeas or § 2255 petition that is properly dismissed as time-barred . . . constitutes an adjudication on the merits for successive purposes.”). This Court thus lacks jurisdiction to consider this petition. In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1061 (11th Cir. 2003) (“when a federal prisoner's claims fall within the ambit of § 2255, the prisoner is subject to that section's restrictions”).
Since her motion is successive, it should be DISMISSED as an unauthorized, successive petition. Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant”) (emphasis added). This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
[1] The Court cites to the criminal docket. Page references are to the CM/ECF screen page rather than the referenced document's own internal pagination.
[2] Reese recognizes that successive &sect; 2255 motions are not generally allowed, but argues that the circumstances of his claims warrant leave. See doc. 136 at 1. As explained below, any such argument must be presented to and accepted by the Court of Appeals ...