U.S. v. WILLIAMS, 4:08CR00240 JLH. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150721632
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES , District Judge . Elton Williams, III, has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 3553(a). The issues he raises, however, are not clerical errors; they are issues regarding whether his guideline range was properly calculated. Those issues could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. They were, however, raised in a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, in which Williams argued that this lawyer
Summary: ORDER J. LEON HOLMES , District Judge . Elton Williams, III, has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 3553(a). The issues he raises, however, are not clerical errors; they are issues regarding whether his guideline range was properly calculated. Those issues could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. They were, however, raised in a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, in which Williams argued that this lawyer ..
More
ORDER
J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge.
Elton Williams, III, has filed a motion pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The issues he raises, however, are not clerical errors; they are issues regarding whether his guideline range was properly calculated. Those issues could have been raised on direct appeal but were not. They were, however, raised in a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, in which Williams argued that this lawyer was ineffective for failing to challenge the Court's approach in determining that his prior convictions for commercial burglary were crimes of violence. This Court previously denied that petition and denied a certificate of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit also denied a certificate of appealability.
Although Williams characterizes his motion as a motion to correct clerical errors, in fact it is a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), Williams must obtain permission from the court of appeals to assert a second or successive motion. Therefore, his motion is denied without prejudice. Document #74.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
