Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/2707191/Rosemond-v-USA-Document-No-2
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 01:16:42
Document Index: 137925053

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§\n2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2244', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2244', '§ 2255', '§ 2255']

Rosemond v. USA - Document No. 2 | United States District Court | United States Courts Of Appeals
ORDER construing petitioner's "Request to Reopen Judgment due to Deprivation of Petitioner's Right to Counsel of Choice" as a Rule 60(b) motion which is in turn construed as a section 2255 motion; DISMISSING 1 Motion to Vacate Under 2255 as successive. Signed by Judge Henry M Herlong Jr on 9/29/06.(sfla) 6:2006cv02741 South Carolina District Court
saveSave Rosemond v. USA - Document No. 2 For Later
West v. Champion, 10th Cir. (2010)
Rosemond v. USA Doc.
6:06-cv-02741-HMH Date Filed 09/29/2006 Entry Number 2 Page 1 of 3
United States of America ) 6:06cv2741-HMH
Calvin Rosemond, Jr., ) OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Calvin Rosemond’s (“Rosemond”) “Request to Reopen
the Judgment due to Deprivation of Petitioner’s Right to Counsel of Choice.” The court construes
this as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reason set
forth below, the court dismisses Rosemond’s § 2255 motion.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has admonished the court to be
watchful and distinguish “a proper Rule 60(b) motion from a successive [motion pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255] in 60(b)’s clothing.” United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.
2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] district court has no discretion to rule on a Rule
60(b) motion that is functionally equivalent to a successive [§ 2255 motion].” Id. at 206.
Furthermore, “a prisoner seeking to file a successive [§ 2255 motion] in the district court must first
obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.” Id. at 205. Otherwise, “[i]n the
absence of pre-filing authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider [a successive §
2255 motion] containing abusive or repetitive claims.” Id.
Therefore, the court must distinguish a proper Rule 60(b) motion from a
§ 2255 motion. “[A] motion directly attacking the prisoner’s conviction or sentence will usually
amount to a successive [§ 2255 motion], while a motion seeking a remedy for some defect in the
6:06-cv-02741-HMH Date Filed 09/29/2006 Entry Number 2 Page 2 of 3
collateral review process will generally be deemed a proper motion to reconsider.” Id. at 207.
Rosemond’s motion attacks the validity of his conviction and sentence. Therefore, the court
construes Rosemond’s instant motion as one to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant
to § 2255.
Rosemond filed a § 2255 motion on February 3, 2005,1 which the court summarily
dismissed on March 22, 2005. As such, the instant § 2255 motion is successive. As noted above,
“a prisoner seeking to file a successive application in the district court must first obtain
authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.” United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
205 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) (“A second
or successive motion [under this section] must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel
of the appropriate court of appeals . . . .”). Rosemond has not obtained authorization from the
appropriate United States Court of Appeals to proceed with a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Additionally, Rosemond has failed to show “[reliance] on either a new and retroactive rule of
constitutional law or new facts showing a high probability of actual innocence” such that his
motion should not be considered successive. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2646 (U.S.
2005); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (West Supp. 2006). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction over
Rosemond’s § 2255 motion.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
6:06-cv-02741-HMH Date Filed 09/29/2006 Entry Number 2 Page 3 of 3
ORDERED that Rosemond’s § 2255 motion is dismissed.
The movant is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60)
days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Documents Similar To Rosemond v. USA - Document No. 2
Rosborough v. United States, 10th Cir. (2009)