Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20070118_0000106.SIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-24 04:55:13
Document Index: 186051581

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,v.CARLOS D. KNOX, DEFENDANT.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Carlos D. Knox's ("Knox") motion seeking reversal of his criminal conviction in this case (Doc. 79). The Court construes Knox's motion as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 despite the fact that it is not explicitly labeled as such. "Any motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence, and substantively within the scope of §2255 ¶1, is a motion under §2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the cover." Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004).
This is not Knox's first § 2255 motion. He filed his first motion in December 2003, and the Court denied it in March 2005. See Knox v. United States, No. 03-cv-4206-JPG. In order for the Court to consider a successive petition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 8. Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). It has not done so. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the pending § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES the pending motion (Doc. 79) for lack of jurisdiction.