RANDLE, MICKEY A. v. USA

Filing 2

ORDER denying 1 Motion to Vacate Sentence per 28 USC 2255 by petitioner Mickey A. Randle because he has not obtained the necessary certification under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/6/2016. (kwf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MICKEY RANDLE,
ORDER
Petitioner,
04-cr-188-bbc
16-cv-669-bbc

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner Mickey Randle has moved for post conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2255(f)(3), contending that he is entitled to a reduction in his sentence in light of Mathis
v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243. His motion must be denied. This is not petitioner’s first
motion for post conviction relief. He filed an earlier one in 2007, which was denied.
Recently, petitioner asked a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to
grant him certification for a second motion for post conviction relief, this time under
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The court of appeals denied the request,
which means that petitioner was barred from filing a second motion for post conviction
relief.
Now petitioner has filed a new motion for post conviction relief, this time under
Mathis. However, he has not obtained certification for the filing from the court of appeals.
His motion must be denied because this court has no authority to hear his case without the

1

necessary certification that the motion contains “newly discovered evidence that, if proven
and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the
offense” or that the motion is based on “a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h).)

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Mickey Randle’s motion for post conviction relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED because he has not obtained the necessary certification
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Entered this 6th day of October, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

2