From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Mar 5, 2024
4:09-CR-00099-BSM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 5, 2024)

Opinion

4:09-CR-00099-BSM

03-05-2024

RANDEEP SINGH MANN PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT


ORDER

Without delving into the merits of Randeep Mann's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. No. 528], the motion is denied for lack of jurisdiction. District courts have jurisdiction over second or successive section 2255 motions only when the court of appeals certifies that the motion contains newly discovered evidence that would exonerate the movant or a previously unavailable and retroactive constitutional rule. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 157 (2007). This is Mann's third 2255 motion and the Eighth Circuit has not made the above-mentioned certification. See Mot. to Vacate 7-13, 16-19, Doc. No. 528.

Mann's motion to correct the record [Doc. No. 530] is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mann v. United States

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Mar 5, 2024
4:09-CR-00099-BSM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 5, 2024)
Case details for

Mann v. United States

Case Details

Full title:RANDEEP SINGH MANN PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas

Date published: Mar 5, 2024

Citations

4:09-CR-00099-BSM (E.D. Ark. Mar. 5, 2024)