William Gray, Jr. v. R. Lee
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:02-hc-00335-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999631830]. Mailed to: William Gray. [14-7230]
Appeal: 14-7230
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7230
WILLIAM ROBERT GRAY, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R.C. LEE, Warden of Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:02-hc-00335-BO)
Submitted:
June 19, 2015
Decided:
July 31, 2015
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF, WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Danielle Marquis Elder,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-7230
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
William
Robert
Gray,
Jr.
was
convicted
of
first
degree
murder and sentenced to death in North Carolina state court.
See Gray v. Banker, 529 F.3d 220, 223 (4th Cir. 2008).
He
successfully appealed the U.S. district court’s denial of his
petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
We remanded the case
with instructions to the district court to grant the writ unless
the
state
reasonable
district
afforded
time.
court
him
See
a
id.
entered
an
new
at
sentencing
242.
order
On
that
hearing
August
released
within
a
7,
2008,
the
Gray
from
his
death sentence and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment if
the state did not initiate new sentencing proceedings within 180
days.
See J.A. 181.
Nearly
five
years
later,
proceedings had not taken place.
remarkably,
resentencing
In 2013, Gray filed several
pro se motions, including what is best construed as a motion
under
28
U.S.C.
constitutional
§ 2241
grounds. ∗
asking
for
Mistakenly
∗
his
release
believing
on
that
various
Gray’s
It is our “longstanding practice . . . to classify pro se
pleadings from prisoners according to their contents, without
regard to their captions.” United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003).
Gray’s filings principally attacked
the five-year long delay in the state’s failure to resentence
him; in other words, the execution of his sentence.
See In re
Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n.5 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[A]ttacks on the
execution of a sentence are properly raised in a § 2241
petition.”).
2
Appeal: 14-7230
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 3 of 4
resentencing hearing had already occurred, the district court
denied
his
motion
as
moot.
Gray
moved
for
reconsideration.
Subsequently, the district court determined the delay in Gray’s
resentencing
proceedings
counsel
negotiated
had
was
with
reasonable,
the
state
because
several
his
trial
postponements
during this five-year period to his benefit.
Now
represented
by
counsel
from
his
original
habeas
proceeding, Gray appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration.
a
motion
for
A timely appeal of an order denying
reconsideration
automatically
brings
both
that
order and the underlying order before the appeals court.
See
Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809-10 (4th Cir. 1978).
To the
extent Gray’s appeal requires a certificate of appealability,
see United States v. McRae, No. 13-6878,
2015 WL 4190665, at
*5-6 (4th Cir. July 13, 2015), we have independently reviewed
the record and conclude he has not made the requisite showing.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (requiring “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right”).
We therefore hold that
the district court’s denial of Gray’s motion for reconsideration
is affirmed.
We
note
that
in
his
briefing,
Gray
advances
a
second
argument unrelated to his resentencing predicated on McQuiggin
v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013).
This actual innocence claim
really goes to the validity of Gray’s underlying conviction.
3
Appeal: 14-7230
Doc: 31
Filed: 07/31/2015
Pg: 4 of 4
Gray of course could not have brought a separate § 2254 petition
challenging
his
new
judgment
actually resentenced him.
on
this
basis
until
the
state
But, the claim is improperly raised
here because it was outside the scope of the court’s decision on
his § 2241 sentencing challenge, and therefore never before the
district court.
We further note that Gray has not moved for an
order authorizing the district court to consider a second or
successive habeas corpus application, and we do not today decide
whether such authorization would be appropriate.
The opinion of
the district court is
AFFIRMED.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?