US v. Kofie Jone
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cr-00047-FPS-RWT-1, 1:13-cv-00267-FPS-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-6552]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
KOFIE AKIEM JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge.
March 7, 2017
March 17, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gray R. Proctor, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant.
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia;
Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as “second or successive”
within the meaning of § 2255(h), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion for reconsideration. ∗
Jones argued that his § 2255
motion was not successive pursuant to Magwood v. Patterson, 561
judgment intervening between his prior § 2255 motions and this
In dismissing his motion, the district court rejected the
argument but granted him a certificate of appealability.
We recently “join[ed] the chorus of our sister circuits in
finding that when a habeas petition is the first to challenge a
new judgment, it is not second or successive . . . regardless of
775861, at *3 (4th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017).
In light of our holding
in Gray, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for
We dispense with oral argument because the
In the first order, the district court granted Jones a
certificate of appealability as to its dispositive procedural
ruling that his § 2255 motion was second or successive within
the meaning of § 2255(h). To the extent that it is required, we
grant Jones a certificate of appealability as to the district
court’s subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration.
Pg: 3 of 3
VACATED AND REMANDED
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?