US v. Michael Speed
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999930438-2], [999958808-2]; denying Motion for temporary administrative stay [999930438-3] Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00700-JFM-1,1:16-cv-02421-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Michael Speed. [16-7127]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00700-JFM-1; 1:16-cv-02421-JFM)
January 19, 2017
February 2, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Speed, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin M. Block, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
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.
criminal judgment to begin his appellate period anew.
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
We also deny Speed’s motions for appointment
of counsel and for a stay of proceedings.
We dispense with oral
Pg: 3 of 3
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
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?