Watts v. USA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing without prejudice re 4 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Lamarlvin A. Watts Objections to R&R due by 6/29/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 6/15/17. (trb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court
By tblanchard at 9:43 am, Jun 15, 2017
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jury-convicted of armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm
during a crime of violence (doc. 112), Lamarlvin Watts’ appeal is
pending before the Eleventh Circuit (docs. 116 & 118; see United States
v. Watts, No. 17-12066-D (11th Cir.)).
He simultaneously seeks to
vacate his sentence through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Docs. 125 &
Section 2255, however, is “intended to afford strictly postconviction relief.” See United States v. Casaran-Rivas, 311 F. App’x
269, 273 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(a), (f)). Collateral
relief and direct-appeal relief cannot be pursued simultaneously, as “the
disposition of a direct appeal might render a habeas motion
unnecessary.” Id. (citing United States v. Khory, 901 F.2d 975, 975
(11th Cir. 1990) (absent extraordinary circumstances, a defendant may
not seek collateral relief while his direct appeal is pending, as the
outcome of the direct appeal may negate the need for habeas relief)); see
also Kapral v. United States, 166 F.3d 565, 570 (3rd Cir. 1999) (“a
collateral attack is generally inappropriate if the possibility of further
direct review remains open.”); Welsh v. United States, 404 F.2d 333
(5th Cir. 1968) (a § 2255 motion “will not be entertained during the
pendency of a direct appeal, inasmuch as the disposition of the appeal
may render the motion moot.”); Jack v. United States, 435 F.2d 317, 318
(9th Cir. 1970) (“[e]xcept under most unusual circumstances, not here
present, no defendant in a federal criminal prosecution is entitled to
have a direct appeal and a § 2255 proceeding considered simultaneously
in an effort to overturn the conviction and sentence.”).
“To this end, the record includes no reason to conclude that
[Watts’] case presents extraordinary circumstances that render this
Casaran-Rivas, 311 F. App’x at 273.
§ 2255 motion should be DISMISSED without prejudice as premature.1
Meaning, should movant decide to pursue collateral relief after resolution of his
direct appeal, that subsequent § 2255 motion would not be second or successive.
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district
judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court’s Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file
written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all
The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the
assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge.
recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are
advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of
rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648
F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F. App’x 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 15th day of June,
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?