Woods v. United States of America, The
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 3/11/15. (SAC )
2015 Mar-11 PM 03:31
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
LACORREY RONTEDES WOODS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case Nos. 2:11-cv-08047-KOB-TMP
Lacorrey Rontedes Woods filed the instant motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his sentence on November 30, 2011. (Doc. 1). The magistrate judge entered
a Report and Recommendation on November 24, 2014, recommending that the court
deny the motion to vacate with respect to all claims except the claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to appeal. (Doc. 12). On January
26, 2015, the undersigned accepted and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation, denying all claims in the motion to vacate except the claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel, which the undersigned referred back to the
magistrate judge to appoint counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing. (Docs. 17 &
After the court’s Order of January 26, 2014, the movant filed a notice of
interlocutory appeal and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal on February
19, 2015, presumably appealing the claims in his motion to vacate that the court
denied. (Doc. 24). Because the court’s January 26, 2014 was not a final Order
because it did not dispose of the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure
to appeal, the court denied both a certificate of appealability and motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (Doc. 27). The Clerk transmitted the notice of appeal and docket
sheet to the Eleventh Circuit on March 4, 2015 and the appeal is currently pending.
Meanwhile, the magistrate judge appointed an attorney for the movant (doc.
19) and held an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel on appeal on March 6, 2015. At the outset of the evidentiary hearing, the
movant’s attorney informed the court that the movant had decided to withdraw the
remaining motion. The magistrate judge explained to the movant that, if he chose to
withdraw the remaining claim, the claim would be subject to the successiveness
clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which requires that a second or successive motion be
certified by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The movant stated that he
understood that voluntarily withdrawing his motion would result in a dismissal with
prejudice and may bar him from raising the claim in any subsequent § 2255 motion.
The movant further indicated that no one had threatened or otherwise coerced him to
withdraw the motion.
Because the movant knowingly and voluntarily chose to withdraw his
remaining claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim is due to be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The court will enter a separate Order in conformity with this Memorandum
DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2015.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?