Harris v. USA

Filing 2

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant motion to vacate is DENIED, without prejudice, because movant did not obtain permission from the court of appeals to bring the motion in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). IT I S FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall TRANSFER the instant motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the Federal Public Defender. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 5/2/16. cc: FDP/USCA(CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC HARRIS,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV600 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant=s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2255. In the instant motion, movant claims that the new Supreme Court
case of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), decided in June of 2015, should be
applied to his case in order to reduce his sentence. The motion is a Asecond or successive motion@
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 & 2255 but has not been certified by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as required by the AEDPA. See Harris v. United States,
4:14CV1323 HEA.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255:
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in
section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to
contain-(1)
newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by
clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would
have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2)
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously
unavailable.
1

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Movant submitted his successive § 2255 motion without the required certification. When
a second or successive habeas petition is filed in a district court without the authorization of the
court of appeals, the court should dismiss it, or, in its discretion, transfer the motion to the
appellate court so long as it is in the interests of justice. Boyd v. U.S., 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.
2002). The Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to transfer this action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant motion to vacate is DENIED, without
prejudice, because movant did not obtain permission from the court of appeals to bring the motion
in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall TRANSFER the instant motion to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to
the Federal Public Defender.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2016.

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2