Court Opinion

ID: 9838166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 15:01:45.546213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:58.970557
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11976    Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 09/05/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11976
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DAVID CLUM, JR.,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket Nos. 0:22-cv-60954-WPD,
                            0:11-cr-60273-WPD-3
USCA11 Case: 22-11976     Document: 34-1     Date Filed: 09/05/2023    Page: 2 of 5

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-11976

                           ____________________

       Before GRANT, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               David Clum, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
       appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
       motion. The motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because
       it was an unauthorized second or successive motion. The
       government responds by moving for summary affirmance of the
       district court’s order. It argues that Clum’s § 2255 motion was
       second or successive because his initial motion was dismissed on
       the merits in 2017 and the predicates for his claims were ripe when
       he filed his initial § 2255 motion. We agree and grant the
       government’s motion for summary affirmance.
                                        I.
              Clum was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud
       the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and 41 counts of
       making a false claim upon the United States, in violation of 18
       U.S.C. §§ 287 and 2. He was sentenced to 293 months
       imprisonment. On direct appeal, we affirmed his convictions and
       sentence. See United States v. Clum, 607 F. App’x 922 (11th Cir.
       2015).
             In 2016, Clum petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, under
       28 U.S.C. § 2241. His petition was filed in the Eastern District of
       Arkansas, where he was being held in custody. That court
       recharacterized his petition as a § 2255 motion to vacate and
USCA11 Case: 22-11976     Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023    Page: 3 of 5

       22-11976               Opinion of the Court                        3

       transferred it to the Southern District of Florida, where he was
       sentenced. In recharacterizing the petition, the Arkansas district
       court informed Clum that he would be limited in his ability to file
       successive motions and gave him a chance to withdraw. Clum did
       not withdraw and his § 2255 motion was denied in the Southern
       District of Florida.
              Last year, Clum filed a second § 2255 motion. He claims
       that he was actually innocent and did not participate in the
       conspiracy to file fraudulent tax claims. In support, he attached an
       affidavit from Penny Lea Jones, one of his codefendants, that he
       says he could not have procured at trial. He also claims that the
       prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v.
       Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which he says he only discovered
       during his initial § 2255 proceeding. And he claims that his trial
       counsel was ineffective when he stated that he was unable to
       review all the discovery evidence and by not calling Jones to testify
       in Clum’s defense.
              The district court sua sponte dismissed the motion for lack
       of jurisdiction because the motion was second or successive and
       filed without the permission of the court of appeals. Clum
       appealed the district court’s order and the government now moves
       for summary affirmance.
                                        II.
             We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255
       motion as second or successive. Boyd v. United States, 754 F.3d 1298,
       1301 (11th Cir. 2014). Summary disposition is appropriate where
USCA11 Case: 22-11976      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-11976

       “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law
       so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
       the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th
       Cir. 1969).
                                        III.
               Section 2255 allows a federal prisoner to collaterally attack
       his conviction and sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). But the
       statute only authorizes a single motion as of right; a federal
       prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive motion to vacate
       must move the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district
       court to consider such a motion. See id. § 2255(h); id.
       § 2244(b)(3)(A). If a movant submits a second or successive § 2255
       motion without first receiving authorization, a district court is
       without jurisdiction to hear the case and must dismiss the motion.
       Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003).
              Clum’s motion is second or successive because his initial
       § 2241 petition was recharacterized as a § 2255 motion and
       dismissed on the merits. A numerically second or successive § 2255
       motion, however, does not always qualify as second or successive.
       See Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 859–60 (11th Cir. 2011).
       When the basis for a numerically second or successive motion did
       not exist before proceedings on the initial § 2255 motion
       concluded, the claim falls within “a small subset of unavailable
       claims that must not be categorized as successive.” Id. at 863.
       Claims that are based on facts that existed at the time of the first
       habeas petition but were not discovered until later are still
USCA11 Case: 22-11976      Document: 34-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 5 of 5

       22-11976               Opinion of the Court                          5

       successive. See id. But a § 2255 motion filed based on the vacatur
       of prior convictions is not successive when the convictions were
       vacated after the movant’s first § 2255 motion was filed. See id.
              The factual predicates to support Clum’s claims existed
       when he filed his initial § 2255 motion and there has been no
       intervening judgment. Clum says that the Jones affidavit, which he
       included in support of his misjoinder claim, was unavailable to him
       at the time of his first motion. But the facts that Jones attests to
       existed at the time of his trial and when he filed his first motion, so
       his claims based on this supposedly new evidence are still
       successive. See id. Moreover, the Brady violations occurred at his
       trial and before his initial § 2255 motion and his ineffective-
       assistance-of-counsel claim is based on information available to
       him at trial. Accordingly, Clum’s motion is second or successive
       and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Because we
       have not permitted Clum to file a second or successive motion, the
       government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law.
           The government’s motion for summary affirmance is
       GRANTED.