Hoskins v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) ( Criminal Action CR 05-2035-LRR) filed by Walter Hoskins, III. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 6/27/14. (ksy)(Copy w/NEF to Plf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION

WALTER HOSKINS, III,
Movant,

No. C14-2040-LRR
No. CR05-2035-LRR

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

ORDER

____________________________
This matter appears before the court on Walter Hoskins, III’s motion to vacate, set
aside or correct sentence (civil docket no. 1). Walter Hoskins, III (“the movant”) filed
such motion on June 20, 2014. The movant previously sought relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255, and, before filing the instant action, the movant did not move the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals for authorization allowing the court to file and consider a second 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides:
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.
“This rule is absolute.” Boykin v. United States, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27076 at *1-3,
2000 WL 1610732 at *1 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam unpublished opinion) (vacating
judgment regarding 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and remanding case to district court to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction). Cf. Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662, 116 S. Ct.
2333, 135 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1996) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)); Vancleave v. Norris,

150 F.3d 926, 927-28 (8th Cir. 1998) (same). Accordingly, the movant’s instant 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion (civil docket no. 1) shall be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
The movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (civil docket no. 1) is DISMISSED.
DATED this 27th day of June, 2014.

2