Filed: Apr. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM MARVIN J. GARBIS, Senior District Judge. Pending is Keenan Kester Cofield's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, challenging his conviction for conspiracy theft based on a "new Supreme Ct decision on effective counsel plea process" (ECF No. 228, at 1). 1 The Court will dismiss the Motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for reasons to follow. Cofield was convicted on a plea of guilty to conspiring to utter forged Treasury ch
Summary: MEMORANDUM MARVIN J. GARBIS, Senior District Judge. Pending is Keenan Kester Cofield's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, challenging his conviction for conspiracy theft based on a "new Supreme Ct decision on effective counsel plea process" (ECF No. 228, at 1). 1 The Court will dismiss the Motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for reasons to follow. Cofield was convicted on a plea of guilty to conspiring to utter forged Treasury che..
More
MEMORANDUM
MARVIN J. GARBIS, Senior District Judge.
Pending is Keenan Kester Cofield's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging his conviction for conspiracy theft based on a "new Supreme Ct decision on effective counsel plea process" (ECF No. 228, at 1).1 The Court will dismiss the Motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction for reasons to follow.
Cofield was convicted on a plea of guilty to conspiring to utter forged Treasury checks on November 9, 2004. On May 5, 2005, he filed a Motion to Vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which was denied on July 19, 2006. See Cofield v. United States, Civil Action No. MJG-06-881 (D. Md.). Cofield appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Cofield, CA4 06-7376 (November 22, 2006). The instant § 2255 motion is therefore successive. Second or successive motions under § 2255 may not be filed absent leave to do so from the Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 (b) (3) (A) & 2255; In re Avery W. Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1197-98 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Since Cofield does not indicate whether he has complied with the procedural requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion, the Motion will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the "Rules Governing Proceedings Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255," this Court is required to issue or deny a Certificate of Appealability (COA) when it enters a final order adverse to the Petitioner. A COA is a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to an appeal from the Court's earlier order, see United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007), which may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2). Cofield does not satisfy this standard and a COA shall be denied. A separate Order follows.
