Mays v. United States of America
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/17/2013. (AVC)
2013 Jan-17 AM 09:11
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
KARLOS CEDENO MAYS,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No.: 2:12-cv-8055-RDP
Before the court is the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence filed by Movant
Karlos Cendeno Mays, a federal prisoner acting pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. #1).
Movant requests that the court vacate his conviction and sentence on the ground that he received
ineffective assistance from counsel with regard to his plea agreement. (Doc. #1 at 2, 15). However,
regardless of the merits of the claim, the court cannot hear this case at this time because it is a
successive petition filed without the permission of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Therefore, the motion is due to be denied without prejudice for want of
Movant challenges his criminal conviction (Doc. #416 in Case No.: 2:05-cr-297-RDP-PWG1) for drug distribution and money laundering. He filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on March 16, 2009. (Doc. #1 in Case No.: 2:09-cv-8009RDP-PWG). That motion was denied on July 13, 2010. (Docs. #16, 17, and 18 in Case. No.: 2:09cv-8009-RDP-PWG). Movant did not appeal that decision. On August 23, 2012, Movant filed a
second Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (Doc. #1 in Case No.: 2:12cv-8037). That motion was denied without prejudice on August 28, 2012 as the court lacked
jurisdiction to hear it because it was a subsequent Section 2255 motion filed without authorization
from the Eleventh Circuit. (Docs. #2, 3 in Case No.: 2:12-cv-8037). The instant Motion is Movant’s
third successive Section 2255 petition.
A second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 “must be certified as provided in
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2244
provides that “before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the
district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing
the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent an order from the
court of appeals authorizing the consideration of the application, “the district court lacks jurisdiction
to consider a second or successive petition.” Farris v. United States, 333 F. 3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.
2003); see also United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005).
Movant has previously filed two Section 2255 motions. Both motions were denied and those
denials have long since become final. Movant has not obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit
authorizing this court to consider this successive Section 2255 motion. Without such an order, this
court lacks jurisdiction to consider the instant Section 2255 motion (Doc. #1). Accordingly, the
motion is due to be denied without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate final order will be
entered in accordance with the terms of this memorandum decision.
DONE and ORDERED this
day of January, 2013.
R. DAVID PROCTOR
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?