Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 95 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 03-30874
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-30874
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2004.
Cristina Walker, Assistant US Attorney, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Lorenzo Jefferson, #08786-035, Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Jefferson, federal prisoner # 08786-035, filed a pleading styled "Motion for Writ of Mandamus to Correct Jurisdictional Defect and Unlawful Sentence." The district court denied the motion, concluding that Jefferson was attempting to circumvent restrictions on the filing of successive motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jefferson contends that his motion raises issues which may be raised at any time because they put at issue the trial court's jurisdiction.
Because Jefferson's Motion for Writ of Mandamus attacked errors that occurred at trial or sentencing, it was properly construed by the district court as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1998). Jefferson has already applied for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to no avail, and this court has refused to permit Jefferson to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Because Jefferson has not obtained leave of this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Jefferson's motion. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.2000). The district court's order is
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.