OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 104]

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

Defendant Carmen Occhipinti moves pro se to vacate his sentence. But Occhipinti has not obtained a certificate of appealability, and thus this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear his claim.

For the reasons stated below, the Court TRANSFERS Occhipinti's motion to the Court of Appeals.

I. Background

On July 1, 2014, Occhipinti was indicted on four counts of wire fraud in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1343, seven counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2), one count of witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1)(12), three counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.1

On August 5, 2014, Occhipinti executed a plea agreement with the United States and pleaded guilty to all counts before Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli.2

On December 23, 2014, the Court sentenced Occhipinti to 151-months incarceration, three-years supervised release, $1,700 special assessment, and restitution in the amount of $2,094,108.3 The Court inadvertently failed to formally accept the plea at the time of sentencing, and no formal judgment was entered on the docket.4

On January 3, 2015, Occhipinti, through counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.5 On January 5, 2015, during a status conference and hearing, the Court granted Occhipinti's motion to withdraw his plea.6

On January 20, 2015, Occhipinti executed a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement with the United States and pleaded guilty to all counts before the Court.7 The Court sentenced Occhipinti to 120-months incarceration, five-years supervised release, $1,700 special assessment, and restitution in the amount of $2,094,108.8

On March 21, 2016, Occhipinti moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.9 On July 5, 2016, the Court denied Occhipinti's motion and determined that there was no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability.10

II. Discussion

On December 6, 2019, Occhipinti filed the present motion to vacate judgment.11 He alleges that the Court did not have jurisdiction to accept Occhipinti's second guilty plea or to sentence him.12

Because this motion collaterally attacks Occhipinti's sentence by presenting grounds for vacating the sentence, this Court must transfer the motion to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals "for consideration as [a] motion[] for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 petition."13

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court TRANSFERS the motion to the Court of Appeals as an application to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.