Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corn v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

November 17, 2017

JOHN E. CORN, JR., Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

         Guilty-plea convicted for possession of a firearm as a felon 1991, doc. 35[1] (plea agreement), John Corn, Jr., was sentenced to a total 270 months' imprisonment. See doc. 36 (judgment imposing 210 months' imprisonment on count one and 60 months' imprisonment on count two, to run consecutively, and 120 months' imprisonment on count three, to run concurrently to count one); doc. 44 (Sentencing Hearing transcript). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Doc. 48. He filed his first motion to vacate his sentence in June of 1996 (doc. 49), and it was duly dismissed as untimely filed. Doc. 54 (Report and Recommendation (R&R)); doc. 56 (Order adopting R&R); see also doc. 69 (Order of the Court of Appeals denying Corn's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for a writ of mandamus determining his § 2255 motion to be frivolous).

         Corn now moves under 28 U.S.C. § 2255[2] to correct his sentence to have his Career Offender designation reconsidered. He does not, however, offer even the slightest hint that he has sought the Eleventh Circuit's permission to do so. See doc. 93. Preliminary § 2255 Rule 4 review shows that his motion should be DENIED.

         To file a second or successive § 2255 motion, Corn first had to file an application with the Eleventh Circuit for an order authorizing the district court to consider the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). A panel of the court of appeals must certify that the second or successive motion contains:

(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). “Without authorization” from the court of appeals, a “district court lack[s] jurisdiction to consider [a movant's] second or successive” motion. Carter v. United States, 405 F. App'x 409, 410 (11th Cir. 2010).

         Since this Court dismissed Corn's first § 2255 motion on the merits[3] and he has not sought authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive motion, there is no jurisdiction to consider this second petition. In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1061 (11th Cir. 2003) (“when a federal prisoner's claims fall within the ambit of § 2255, the prisoner is subject to that section's restrictions”).[4] It follows that Corn cannot rely upon § 2255(h)(2) to permit his indisputably successive filing. His motion is therefore procedurally barred and must be DISMISSED.

         Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue either. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant”) (emphasis added).

         This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.

         After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).

         SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The Court is citing to the criminal docket in CR491-151 unless otherwise noted, and all page numbers are those imprinted by the Court's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.