Sandles v. USA

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on January 18, 2007 denying 1 Motion to Vacate. (cc: all counsel; via US Mail to John Eric Sandles)(Randa, Rudolph)

Download PDF
Sandles v. USA Doc. 3 Case 2:07-cv-00020-RTR Filed 01/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 Document 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P l a i n t i f f, v. C a s e No. 07-C-020 92-CR-113 J O H N ERIC SANDLES, Movant. DECISION AND ORDER O n January 3, 2007, the Court received a "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis" th a t was filed by John Eric Sandles ("Sandles"). In his petition, he claims that his conviction an d sentence were pursuant to an unconstitutional statute. Despite the caption on Sandles's f ilin g , it substantively comes within the purview of 28 U.S.C. 2255. See United States v. L lo y d , 398 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2005). Sandles is attacking his underlying conviction and im p riso n m e n t. T h is is not Sandles's first 2255 motion; he has previously filed multiple such m o tio n s . Insofar as Sandles's motion is a successive motion within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2244 & 2255, and, insofar as Sandles has not obtained authorization from the Court of A p p e a ls to file a successive motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the substance o f his arguments. 1 Case 2:07-cv-00020-RTR Filed 01/18/2007 Page 2 of 2 Document 3 N O W , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY O R D E R E D THAT: Sandles's "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis" (Docket No. 1) is C O N S T R U E D as a Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Set Aside his sentence pursuant to 28 U .S .C . 2255. S a n d le s 's Motion is DENIED. T h e clerk is directed to close this case and enter judgment accordingly. D a te d at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 18th day of January, 2007. BY THE COURT s / Rudolph T. Randa Hon. Rudolph T. Randa C h ie f 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?