Woods v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/16/13: denying 1 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct his new sentence; denying Petitioner a certificate of appealability; and, DISMISSING this action with prejudice. (cc: petitioner, all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ONEAL WOODS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 13-CV-385-JPS
(95-CR-187-JPS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

ORDER

In April 1996, this Court sentenced petitioner Oneal Woods to a term
of imprisonment in criminal case number 95-CR-187. (95-CR-187, Docket
#56). Thereafter, Mr. Woods filed a plethora of challenges, including the
following:
He unsuccessfully moved for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. See Woods v. United States, No. 96-C-1370 (E.D. Wis. Jan.
14, 1997). In the following years, he attempted several
unauthorized successive collateral attacks. See United States v.
Woods, 169 F.3d 1077 (7th Cir. 1999); Woods v. United States, No.
03-1539 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2003); Woods v. Hastings, No. 04-3598
(7th Cir. Nov. 30, 2004); Woods v. United States, No. 06-1513 (7th
Cir. Mar. 29, 2006).
(95-CR-187, Docket #113).
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a “second or
successive motion” for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 absent
authorization from the Court of the Appeals of the Seventh Circuit. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h); Suggs v. U.S., 705 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2013).
Therefore, Mr. Woods cites to Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S.Ct. 2788
(2010), for the proposition that his present petition under § 2255 is not second
or successive within the meaning of the statute. (Docket #1). Magwood held

“that a petitioner’s second challenge to his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
was not barred as ‘second or successive’ when it (a) came after the petitioner
had been resentenced because of a successful, initial section 2254 petition and (b)
asserted a claim based only on the resentencing.” Suggs, 705 F.3d at 280
(emphasis added).
In support of his argument for subject matter jurisdiction, Mr. Woods
points to the fact that this Court recently reduced his term of imprisonment
by twenty (20) months (the “New Sentence”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2). (Docket #142). However the New Sentence is not the result of
a successful habeas petition, Suggs, 705 F.3d at 280, rather it is the result of a
successful motion for “a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed
based on a guideline sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered
and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 994(u)” (95-CR-187, Docket #142).
With the benefit of the foregoing background and analysis, the Court
is obliged to find that Mr. Woods’ present action does not qualify for the
benefit of Magwood and, therefore, his present petition under § 2255 (later-intime to at least one prior § 2255 petition) is second or successive within the
meaning of § 2255(h). Thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the present action. Suggs, 705 F.3d at 282.
Moreover, even if the Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over
Mr. Woods’ present petition, the petition would not survive screening under
Rule Four of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Rule Four requires the
Court to conduct an initial examination of the motion to determine “[i]f it
plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of
prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief….” In this
Page 2 of 4

connection, the Court would ascertain, inter alia, whether the grounds raised
in Mr. Wood’s petition have been procedurally-defaulted. The general rule
is that “claims not raised on direct appeal may not be raised on collateral
review unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice.” Massaro v. U.S., 538
U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
Here, Mr. Woods moved for reconsideration of the New Sentence (95CR-187, Docket #s 143 and 144), however, the Court denied those motions on
the merits. (95-CR-187, Docket #149). Subsequently, Mr. Woods filed a notice
of appeal regarding the New Sentence (95-CR-187, See Docket #150, at page
2 (requesting the New Sentence be vacated)), however, his appeal (7th Circuit
Case No. 13-1215) was dismissed “for failure to timely pay the required
docketing fee” (95-CR-187, Docket #158). Therefore, Mr. Woods’ present
§ 2255 claim(s) regarding his New Sentence have not been raised on direct
appeal and he shows no cause or prejudice in this regard.
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, “[t]he
district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters
a final order adverse to the applicant.” To obtain a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the applicant must make “a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right” by establishing that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal citations omitted). While Rule 11(a) permits
a district court to direct the parties to submit arguments on whether a
certificate of appealability should issue, additional argument is not necessary
here. Given the record before the Court, no reasonable jurist would find it
Page 3 of 4

debatable whether this Court was correct in its ruling on the present petition.
Therefore, the Court must and will deny a certificate of appealability as to
Mr. Woods’ petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Oneal Woods’ motion to vacate, set
aside or correct his New Sentence (Docket #1) be and the same is hereby
DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner is DENIED a
certificate of appealability; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is hereby
DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4