From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nugent v. U. S.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 31, 2007
255 F. App'x 526 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

Summary

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action as a second or successive application under § 2255, and dismissal of the same for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals

Summary of this case from Taylor v. United States

Opinion

No. 05-5293.

Filed On: October 31, 2007.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.


JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's orders filed May 19, 2005 and June 21, 2005, be affirmed. Because appellant's Independent Action sought to present a new claim for relief from the criminal judgment against him, the district court properly treated the pleading as a second or successive application under § 2255 and determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion without certification by this court. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.


Summaries of

Nugent v. U. S.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Oct 31, 2007
255 F. App'x 526 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action as a second or successive application under § 2255, and dismissal of the same for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals

Summary of this case from Taylor v. United States

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action as a second or successive application under § 2255, and dismissal of the same for failure to obtain authorization from court of appeals

Summary of this case from Blackwell v. United States

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action "that sought to present a new claim for relief from the criminal judgment" as a second and successive application under section 2255, and dismissing same for failure to obtain certificate of appealability

Summary of this case from Todd v. United States

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action as a second and successive application under section 2255, and dismissing same for failure to obtain certificate of appealability

Summary of this case from Best v. U.S.

affirming district court's treatment of Rule 60(d) independent action as a second and successive application under § 2255, and dismissal of the same for failure to obtain certification from court of appeals

Summary of this case from Blackwell v. U.S.
Case details for

Nugent v. U. S.

Case Details

Full title:Anthony T. Nugent, Appellant v. United States of America, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Oct 31, 2007

Citations

255 F. App'x 526 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Thaler

Additionally, the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have, either explicitly or implicitly, extended the…

United States v. Wilson

Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 302 (5th Cir.2010); id. at 302, n. 4 (collecting cases). The D.C. Circuit…