Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SPEED, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-02
Citations: 675 F. App'x 341
Docket Number: No. 16-7127
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SPEED, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SPEED, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7127
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 19, 2017
Decided: February 2, 2017
Michael Speed, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Speed appeals the district court's order adjudicating his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. In the order, the district court granted relief, in part, by directing vacatur and reentry of Speed's criminal judgment so as to afford Speed an opportunity to file a criminal appeal, but denied Speed's remaining habeas claims on their merits. The district court issued a certificate of appealability.
The district court did not err in reentering Speed's criminal judgment to begin his appellate period anew. Because Speed's remaining habeas claims could, at least arguably, be raised in Speed's criminal appeal or a habeas motion, however, the district court should.not have disposed of the remaining claims with prejudice. Cf. In re Goddard, 170 F.3d 435, 437 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that when a prisoner has wrongly been denied his right to a direct appeal, he should not be forced to raise all possible claims against his criminal judgment in his first § 2255 motion and thereby "make the substantive objections to his conviction and sentence that his lawyer would have made for him on direct appeal").
Thus, although we affirm the district court's order, we modify the dismissal of Speed's remaining habeas claims to be without prejudice. We also deny Speed's motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay of proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED