Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190207_0000372.MAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 03:58:55
Document Index: 483406500

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

FindACase™ | Smiley v. United States
DARREN LAVON SMILEY, Petitioner,
Petitioner Darren Lavon Smiley ("Smiley") is before the court on a. pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. Doc. # 1.
On November 16, 2005, a jury found Smiley guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Criminal No. 2:05cr44-MEF. Sentence was imposed on March 30, 2007, with Smiley receiving a term of 360[1] months' imprisonment, to run concurrently to any state court sentences pending against him. Smiley appealed, and on January 16, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence. United States v. Smiley, 263 Fed.Appx. 765 (11th Cir. 2008).
On August 20, 2008, Smiley filed a.pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his firearm conviction and 360-month sentence. See Civil Action No. 2:08cv690-MEF, Doc. #1. On September 30, 2008, this court entered a judgment denying that § 2255 motion and dismissing the action with prejudice. Id., Doc. # 8; see also id., Docs. # 5 & 7.
In this § 2255 motion, which was filed on January 26, 2019, Smiley appears to challenge the adequacy of the legal representation he received from counsel in his criminal proceedings. See Doc. # 1 at 2-3. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge finds that Smiley's § 2255 motion should be dismissed as a successive motion filed without the required appellate court authorization.
As noted above, Smiley has previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging his 2005 firearm conviction and 360-month sentence. That § 2255 motion was docketed as Civil Action No. 2:08cv690-MEF. On September 30, 2008, this court entered a final judgment denying the § 2255 motion with prejudice.[2] Smiley's instant § 2255 motion is his second such motion challenging his 2005 conviction and sentence.
"The bar on second or successive motions is jurisdictional." In re Morgan, 717 F.3d 1186, 1193 (11th Cir. 2013). A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion where the movant fails to obtain the requisite permission from the appellate court to file a successive motion. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003).
Smiley presents no evidence of his having obtained authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2255 motion. Because Smiley has not obtained the required authorization from the appellate court, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of his present § 2255 motion and the motion is due to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216; Boone v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections, 377 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Smiley's successive § 2255 motion (Doc. # 1) be summarily dismissed because Smiley has not received permission from the ...