Thomas v. United States of America

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM: In the instant motion, movant once again challenges his August 12, 2005 sentence. Movant asserts one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and argues. that he was improperly sentenced under the 2002 version of the Sentencing Guide lines. Movant's motion is successive, and absent certification from the United States Court of Appeals, this Court lacks authority under § 2255 to grant him relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255. As such, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 6/24/2014. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY THOMAS,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:14-CV-1086-CEJ
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
This matter is before the Court on movant=s motion to vacate, set aside or
correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. The motion is successive within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. '' 2244 and 2255 and has not been certified by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as required by the AEDPA. As a
result, the motion will be dismissed.
On May 18, 2005, a jury found movant guilty of four counts of mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. '' 1341 and 2, one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. '' 1343 and 2, two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
'' 1957 and 2, and one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. '' 1344 and
2.

Movant was sentenced on August 12, 2005, to a 172-month term of

imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. The judgment
also required movant to pay restitution in the sum of $1,147,683.71. The judgment

was affirmed on appeal. United States v. Thomas, 451 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court denied movant=s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Thomas v. United States, 549 U.S. 1144, 127 S.Ct. 1010, 166 L.Ed.2d 761 (2007).
Movant filed his first motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255 on April
21, 2008, asserting nine claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas v.
U.S., No. 4:08-CV-599-CEJ (E.D. Mo.). This Court denied the motion based on
movant=s failure to file his motion to vacate within the statute of limitations. The
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant=s application for a certificate of
appealability on March 31, 2011.
Movant filed his second ' 2255 motion to vacate on May 6, 2011, again
asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas v. U.S., No. 4:11-CV810-CEJ (E.D. Mo.). This Court dismissed the action as untimely and successive
on May 18, 2011. Movant did not file an appeal.
Movant filed his third ' 2255 motion to vacate on June 19, 2013, asserting
one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas v. U.S., No. 4:13-CV-1244CEJ (E.D. Mo.). This Court dismissed the action as successive on August 7, 2013.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied movant=s application for a certificate of
appealability on February 4, 2014.
In the instant motion, movant once again challenges his August 12, 2005
sentence. Movant asserts one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and argues
2

that he was improperly sentenced under the 2002 version of the Sentencing
Guidelines.

Movant=s motion is successive, and absent certification from the

United States Court of Appeals, this Court lacks authority under ' 2255 to grant
him relief. See 28 U.S.C. '' 2244 and 2255. As such, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice.
A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2014.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3