U.S. v. Smith, 7:07-CR-101-BR-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180706926
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's pro se motion challenging his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal. (DE # 228.) The court construes the motion as a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 , 532 (2005). As such, petitioner must first seek authorization from the Fourth Circui
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's pro se motion challenging his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal. (DE # 228.) The court construes the motion as a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524 , 532 (2005). As such, petitioner must first seek authorization from the Fourth Circuit..
More
ORDER
W. EARL BRITT, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's pro se motion challenging his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and on direct appeal. (DE # 228.) The court construes the motion as a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). As such, petitioner must first seek authorization from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals before this court can consider the motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255(h). The motion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court finds that petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and therefore, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
