Source: http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170713_0002098.ENC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 08:29:01
Document Index: 453399995

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

This cause comes before the Court on petitioner's motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to reopen the § 2255 proceedings. Also before the Court is petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The government has responded to the substantive motion, petitioner has replied, and the motions are ripe for ruling.
Petitioner is not required to pay the filing fee in order to file a motion under Rule 60(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to relieve a party from final judgment under six enumerated circumstances, which include mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misrepresentation, judgment having become void, satisfaction of the judgment, or any other reason that justifies relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6).
Petitioner's current motion, though denominated as a motion under Rule 60(b)[1], plainly attacks the substance of her sentence and raises no challenge to the integrity of her habeas proceedings. Her motion is thus properly re-characterized as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is second or successive. As the court of appeals has not authorized petitioner to file a second or successive § 2255 petition, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider it and it must be dismissed. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003) ("a motion directly attacking the prisoner's conviction or sentence will usually amount to a successive application" as will "new legal arguments or proffers of additional evidence"); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (appropriate court of appeals must certify a second or successive motion for filing); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Petitioner need not be provided with notice of the Court's recharacterization of her motion as it has been construed as second or successive under § 2255(h). See United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 650 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Brown, 132 Fed.App'x 430, 431 (4th Cir. 2005) (unpublished).
Moreover, as the government has noted in its response to petitioner's Holloway doctrine argument, there were "no legal avenues or bases for vacating" Holloway's convictions absent agreement by the government to such relief. Holloway, 68 F.Supp.3d at 314. The government here has flatly stated that it does not agree to the relief provided in Holloway for petitioner. Accordingly, even if the Court were inclined to revisit petitioner's sentence under some circumstance, it is without the authority to do so in this posture.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, petitioner&#39;s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 123] is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner&#39;s Rule 60(b) motion [DE 124] is DISMISSED. As reasonable jurists would not find this Court&#39;s dismissal of petitioner&#39;s motion debatable, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 ...