Pleasant v. USA
Filing
2
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 9/14/2016. Memorandum Opinion was mailed to Petitioner. (sbea, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR1
RICHl.iOND VA
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:16CV542
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Following
a
jury
trial,
this
Court
convicted Jeffrey A.
Pleasant of two counts of interfering with commerce by threats
or violence,
two
counts
of
carrying a
relation to a crime of violence,
firearm
during
and
in
two counts of possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
v.
Pleasant,
sentenced
31
F.
Pleasant
Memorandum Opinion
App'x 91,
to
622
and
92
States
2003),
ECF
motion,
v.
Nos.
Pleasant
Pleasant,
93-94.
has
of
u.s.c.
No.
Since
on April
§
inundated the
The Court
Id.
22,
By
2003,
the
2255 filed by Pleasant.
3:00CR71
the
2002).
imprisonment.
entered
Court denied a motion under 28
United
(4th Cir.
months
Order
See United States
(E.D.
dismissal
Court
Va.
of
Apr.
his
§
22,
2255
with post-conviction
motions challenging his federal convictions and state charges.
The matter is now before the Court on Pleasant's "Writ for
Relief From Judgment Pursuant to 28 U. s. C.
§
1651 (a) . "
("Writ
for
Relief,"
ECF
No.
(capitalization
1
corrected).)
As
explained below, Pleasant's Writ for Relief must be treated as a
successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C.
§
2255 motion.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
restricted
the
second
successive
or
jurisdiction
of
the
applications
district
for
courts
federal
to
habeas
hear
corpus
relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions
and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism."
v.
Turpin,
518 U.S.
omitted) .
651,
657
Specifically,
(1996)
"[b]efore
Felker
(internal quotation marks
a
second
or
successive
application permitted by this section is filed in the district
court,
the
applicant
shall
move
in
the
appropriate
court
of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
the application."
28 U.S.C.
2244(b) (3) (A).
§
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
has
held
that
collateral
inmates
attacks
inventive labeling.
on
may
not
of
judgment,
vobis, audita
and
successive
sentences
Winestock,
prohibition,
340
capias,
habeas
coram nobis,
corpus
the
It is substance that controls."
United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004)
v. Gramley,
on
by
F. 3d
"Call it a motion for a new trial,
mandamus,
querela,
makes no difference.
bar
See United States v.
200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003).
arrest
the
convictions
their
avoid
97 F.3d 185, 186-87 (7th Cir. 1996)).
2
coram
name
Melton v.
(citing Thurman
Thus,
" [a] ny
motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence,
and substantively within the scope of
under
is a motion
2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the
§
cover."
Cir.
2255 [(a}] ,
§
Id.
(citing Ramunno v. United States, 264 F.3d 723 (7th
2001}}.
successive
asserts
or
petitioner's
Mccalister,
in original}
In
other
[habeas]
words,
petition
reasserts
a
a
if
it
federal
underlying
"motion
in
776,
basis
778
a
second
substance
for
conviction.'"
453 F. App'x.
is
or
relief
464
the
States
United
Boone,
effect
from
(10th Cir. 2011}
(quoting Spitznas v.
or
v.
(alteration
F.3d 1213,
1215
(10th Cir. 2006}}.
Pleasant now argues that he has been denied the ability to
seek
relief
violated
newly
through
speedy
discovered
nauseam
to
2255,
§
trial
provisions,
evidence.
Pleasant,
any
criminal convictions,
that
As
and
the
attempt
Accordingly,
Circuit
Pleasant's
has
that
Court
to
he
prosecution
has
has
challenge
purported
explained
his
ad
federal
not
successive
§
§
2255 motion.
See Melton,
the Writ for Relief is properly
construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.
Fourth
federal
no matter the label, will be dismissed as
a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C.
359 F.3d at 857.
his
authorized
2255
§
2255 motion.
this
motion,
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
3
Court
the
Because the
to
action
entertain
will
be
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
An
2255
§
proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability
( "COA") .
U.S.C.
28
§
A COA will
2253 (c) (1) (B).
not
issue
unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of
a
constitutional
requirement
is
debate whether
should have
issues
right."
satisfied
(or,
been
presented
for
proceed further.'"
fails
to
when
that matter,
in a
'adequate
Estelle,
2253 (c) (2).
to
that
encouragement
529 U.S. 473, 484
880,
standard.
could
the petition
manner or
deserve
This
jurists
agree that)
different
463 U.S.
satisfy this
§
"reasonable
Slack v. McDaniel,
(quoting Barefoot v.
Pleasant
only
resolved
were
u.s.c.
28
893
&
n.4
the
to
(2000)
(1983)).
Accordingly,
a
COA
will be denied.
The
Clerk is directed to send a
copy of
this Memorandum
Opinion to Pleasant and counsel for the United States.
It is so ORDERED.
~ lft 2()/,6
Date:
Richmond, Virginia
j?.f{'
/s/
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
4
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?