KAUFMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

ORDER Denying Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) and Denying Certificate of Appealability. (S.O.) Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/29/2016.(MAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
KATHALEENA KAUFMAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:16-cv-02005-TWP-DKL

Entry Dismissing Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255
and Denying Certificate of Appealability
I. Section 2255 Motion
Kathaleena Kaufman was convicted, after pleading guilty, in No. 1:12-cr-00212-TWPTAB-2, of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute, and to distribute 50 grams or more
of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Judgment was entered on May 1,
2014.
Ms. Kaufman filed a motion seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on October 14,
2014, in 1:14-cv-01677-TWP-MJD, which was dismissed on the merits. Judgment was entered
on June 22, 2015.
Ms. Kaufman filed this second motion under § 2255 on July 27, 2016. When there has
already been a decision on the merits in a federal habeas action, to obtain another round of
federal collateral review a petitioner requires permission from the Court of Appeals under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b). See Potts v. United States, 210 F.3d 770, 770 (7th Cir. 2000). This statute,
§ 2244(b)(3), “creates a ‘gatekeeping’ mechanism for the consideration of second or successive
[habeas] applications in the district court.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996); see

Benefiel v. Davis, 403 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 97980 (7th Cir. 2005).
The present action is another attempt to collaterally challenge the conviction in No. 1:12cr-00212-TWP-TAB-2, however, it is presented without authorization to proceed from the Court
of Appeals. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
This Entry shall be docketed in the underlying criminal action, No. 1:12-cr-00212TWP-TAB-2.
II. Denial of Certificate of Appealability
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules
Governing § 2255 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that Ms. Kaufman has
failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether [this court] was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Court therefore denies
a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 7/29/2016
Distribution:
KATHALEENA KAUFMAN
11053-028
ALDERSON - FPC
Inmate Mail/Parcels
GLEN RAY RD. BOX A
ALDERSON, WV 24910
NOTE TO CLERK: PROCESSING THIS DOCUMENT REQUIRES ACTIONS IN ADDITION TO DOCKETING AND DISTRIBUTION.