Holder v. United States of America
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant's motion to stay [ECF No. 2 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice [ECF No. 3 ] is GRANTED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 5/19/2016. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NORRIS G. HOLDER,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:16CV654 ERW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Norris Holder’s successive motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion must be dismissed.
Movant was convicted of bank robbery by force or violence and carrying a firearm during
a crime of violence and committing murder. United States v. Holder, 4:97CR141 ERW (E.D.
Mo.). The Court sentenced him to death on both counts. He sought § 2255 relief in 2003, and
the Court denied the motion. Holder v. United States, 4:03CV923 ERW (E.D. Mo.). Both
judgments were affirmed.
Movant filed the instant motion seeking relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct.
2551 (2015). He states that the “residual clause” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for
vagueness after Johnson.
Movant moves to stay this action pending authorization from the Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit allowing him to file a successive motion in this Court. The Court lacks the
authority to grant the request. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d
813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (unauthorized successive petition should be “dismiss[ed] for failure to
obtain authorization from the Court of Appeals or, in its discretion, [the district court ] may
transfer the [petition] to the Court of Appeals.”). As a result, the motion is dismissed without
prejudice.
Finally, movant has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition is successive and unauthorized. Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that movant’s motion to stay [ECF No. 2] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel’s motion for leave to appear pro hac vice
[ECF No. 3] is GRANTED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
So Ordered this 19th day of May, 2016.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?