Marshall v. United States of America

Filing 6

Order denying motion to correct sentence and closing case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 7/29/2016. (ahk) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 16-22499-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF (Underlying Criminal Case No. 98-cr-00289) EDDIE MARSHALL, Movant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ________________________________/ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT SENTENCE AND CLOSING CASE THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Eddie Marshall’s Motion to Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 1]. Defendant sought leave from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a successive habeas petition in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016). Prior to a decision on Defendant’s application, Defendant filed the instant Motion in this Court (the successive habeas petition). The Court of Appeals has since denied Defendant’s application for leave to file a successive habeas petition. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s successive habeas petition. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Eddie Marshall’s Motion to Correct Sentence [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively CLOSE the case, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of July, 2016. ________________________________ DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magistrate Judge Turnoff Counsel of Record

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?