Sanchez v. USA

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/18/2013. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD SANCHEZ,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13CV167 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Edward Sanchez’s motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Having reviewed the motion, the
Court finds that it must be dismissed because it is successive and movant does not
have permission from the Circuit Court to file it.
Movant pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more
of a substance containing methamphetamine. On September 11, 2009, the Court
sentenced movant to 135 months’ imprisonment. Movant did not appeal. On
September 7, 2010, movant filed a motion to vacate under § 2255. The Court denied
the motion on its merits on October 26, 2011. And on February 29, 2012, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant’s application for a certificate of
appealability.

Movant filed the instant motion in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. He labeled it as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Texas court found that the relief requested was only available
under § 2255, and the court warned petitioner that if he did not withdraw it, the court
would construe it as a § 2255 motion and transfer it to this Court. Movant did not
withdraw the motion.
Movant alleges that his conviction is unlawful because the indictment was
invalid, and he seeks early release from confinement.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) requires that a movant seeking to file a second or
successive motion must obtain permission from the Circuit Court before filing such
motion in the District Court. Absent certification from the appellate court, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Because movant does not have
permission from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to file this action, the Court will
dismiss it without further proceedings.
Finally, movant has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the motion is successive. Thus, the Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED.
-2-

A separate Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-