Hopkins v. United States Of America

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Vernon Edward Hopkins. Objections to R&R due by 10/3/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/19/16. (jlm)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION VERNON EDWARD HOPKINS, Movant, v. Case No. CV416-133 CR400-128 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In Hopkins v. United States , CV416-024, Vernon Edward Hopkins invoked 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to seek resentencing absent an armed career criminal enhancement. CR400-128, doc. 61 at 1. This Court dismissed it as successive. Id. at 3, adopted, doc. 67. He then applied to the Eleventh Circuit for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion. Doc. 69 (copy of that successiveness application erroneously docketed as a motion before this Court and thus, ADMINISTRATIVELY DENIED ). That court denied his application on the merits. In Re Hopkins , No. 16-13139-J (11th Cir. June 29, 2016) (copy attached). Hopkins filed what he called an “Authorized Second and Successive Motion To Vacate [Etc.]” here. Doc. 68. It most certainly was not authorized and therefore must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States , 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”) (emphasis added). Any motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis therefore is moot. SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of September, 2016. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2

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?