Source: http://md.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150225_0000302.DMD.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 08:14:45
Document Index: 778759325

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1651', '§ 2255', '§ 2244', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

RAUL CASTILLO RAMOS, pro se Petitioner.v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Crim No. PJM 04-293
On September 12, 2014, Raul Castillo Ramos, pro se, filed a 79 page "Petition for Relief Under the All Writs Act, Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), " seeking to set aside his convictions. (ECF No. 83).[1] Ramos filed the same petition on May 7, 2014. (ECF No. 79). The Court construed the May 7 petition as a successive motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 80, at 3). The Court also noted that Ramos had provided no evidence that he received authorization to file a successive Motion to Vacate by the Fourth Circuit as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The Court provided Ramos a packet of instructions promulgated by the Fourth Circuit which addressed the procedures to be followed should Ramos wish to seek authorization to tile a successive petition (ECF No. 80, at 3, 3 n.3). The Court then dismissed the Motion without prejudice. (ECF No. 81). The Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (ECF No. 81), [2]
Since the Court's ruling, Ramos has sought authorization to file a successive petition with the Fourth Circuit. Attached to Ramos's instant petition is an order from the Fourth Circuit denying Ramos's motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 83-7); In re Raul Castillo Ramos, 14-354 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 2014).
The Court again construes the instant petition (ECF No. 83) as a successive Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Fourth Circuit denied Ramos's motion for an order authorizing this Court to consider a successive application for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Accordingly, in the absence of pre-filing authorization, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Ramos's successivc Motion to Vacate Sentence. See United States v. Winestack, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court thereby ...