Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: Johnson v., 06-6277 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-6277 Visitors: 38
Filed: Apr. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6277 In Re: RONALD G. JOHNSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis (6:01-cr-10019-NKM) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald G. Johnson petitions for a writ o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6277 In Re: RONALD G. JOHNSON, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis (6:01-cr-10019-NKM) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Johnson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald G. Johnson petitions for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000). In his petitions, Johnson asserts that his convictions and sentence are unconstitutional, and seeks an order from this court vacating his convictions and sentence and for other relief. The relief sought by Johnson is not available under § 1651, but is properly pursued through a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We note that Johnson has previously filed a § 2255 motion in the district court, and must therefore obtain authorization to file a successive motion pursuant to § 2255 ¶ 8 before a second or successive motion may be considered by the district court. Accordingly, we grant Johnson’s motions to strike filings from the record, deny Johnson’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Johnson’s motions for appointment of counsel, and deny the petitions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer