Dudley v. USA

Filing 79

ORDER denying 74 Motion to alter, amend, or correct judgment; denying 75 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 76 Motion to Amend/Correct. Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 5/19/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cbb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:99-CV-00152-RLV
(5:97-CR-00001-RLV-1)
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner’s pro se motions for
relief from judgment or motions to amend judgment and his motion for leave to file an
amendment. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75 and 76). The Court recently dismissed Case No. 5:14-CV-43RLV after finding that the motion for relief was in fact an unauthorized, successive § 2255
motion, and to date this Court has dismissed several such motions for relief as unauthorized,
successive § 2255 motions. See (5:97-CR-00001, Doc. Nos. 158, 162, and 164).
As has been explained time and again, Petitioner may not seek relief from his criminal
judgment in a habeas proceeding based on the arguments that he has continually presented unless
he first obtains authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion and he
has never presented any evidence that he has obtained such permission. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Petitioner’s motions in Document Nos. 74 through
76.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions to alter, amend or correct
judgment are DENIED. (Doc. Nos. 74, 75, and 76).
1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability as Petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003) (stating that in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000)
(holding that when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a petitioner must establish both that
the correctness of the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a
debatably valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right).

Signed: May 19, 2014

2