U.S. v. ANGULO-LOPEZ, CR-91-220-D. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20120126534
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Juan Carlos Angulo-Lopez's pro se Motion to Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 1252], filed January 11, 2012. The Motion requests relief from a criminal sentence but cites no statutory authority, which is necessary to this Court's exercise of jurisdiction. 1 Because the Motion challenges the constitutionality of Defendant's conviction and sentence, it may be brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 2 However, this Court lacks jurisdi
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Juan Carlos Angulo-Lopez's pro se Motion to Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 1252], filed January 11, 2012. The Motion requests relief from a criminal sentence but cites no statutory authority, which is necessary to this Court's exercise of jurisdiction. 1 Because the Motion challenges the constitutionality of Defendant's conviction and sentence, it may be brought under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 2 However, this Court lacks jurisdic..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Juan Carlos Angulo-Lopez's pro se Motion to Correct Sentence [Doc. No. 1252], filed January 11, 2012. The Motion requests relief from a criminal sentence but cites no statutory authority, which is necessary to this Court's exercise of jurisdiction.1 Because the Motion challenges the constitutionality of Defendant's conviction and sentence, it may be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.2 However, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a new § 2255 motion by Defendant because the case record shows he has previously sought § 2255 relief, which was denied on November 8, 2001. Thus, prior authorization from the court of appeals to file a second or successive motion is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Because Defendant has not alleged a jurisdictional basis for his Motion, the Court finds that it should be denied without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 1252] is DENIED without prejudice, without need for a response by the government.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See United States v. Green, 405 F.3d 1180, 1184 (10th Cir. 2005) (a district court may modify a criminal sentence only "where Congress has expressly granted the court jurisdiction to do so").
2. See Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996) ("The exclusive remedy for testing the validity of a judgment and sentence, unless it is inadequate or ineffective, is that provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 2255."); see also United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1246 (10th Cir. 2002) (petition for writ that challenged a conviction and sentence recharacterized as § 2255 motion).
Source: Leagle
