Filed: Aug. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . Rodney Lucas ("Lucas") has already filed and lost a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 attacking his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 72]. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not authorized Lucas to file a second section 2255 motion. Lucas's latest motions continue to attack his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 75,76,77, 78]. The court construes Lucas's motions at D.E. 76 and 77 as successive under section 2255
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . Rodney Lucas ("Lucas") has already filed and lost a motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 attacking his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 72]. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not authorized Lucas to file a second section 2255 motion. Lucas's latest motions continue to attack his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 75,76,77, 78]. The court construes Lucas's motions at D.E. 76 and 77 as successive under section 2255...
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
Rodney Lucas ("Lucas") has already filed and lost a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 72]. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not authorized Lucas to file a second section 2255 motion.
Lucas's latest motions continue to attack his conviction and sentence. See [D.E. 75,76,77, 78]. The court construes Lucas's motions at D.E. 76 and 77 as successive under section 2255. This court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider those motions. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147,152-53 (2007) (per curiam): In re Williams, 364 F.3d 235.238 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, the court dismisses those motions. Lucas's motion for appointment of counsel [D.E. 78] and for DNA testing [D.E. 75] are baseless and are denied. See, e.g., [D.E. 81] 4-5.
In sum, the court DISMISSES Lucas's motions attacking his conviction and sentence [D.E. 76, 77] for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as successive and DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,484 (2000). The court DENIES Lucas's other two motions [D.E. 75, 78] as baseless.
SO ORDERED.
