United States v. Lawson

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JULIUS LAWSON, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Date published: Dec 7, 2017

CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-4-TLS (N.D. Ind. Dec. 7, 2017)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 1:13-CR-4-TLS 1:17-CV-495

12-07-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JULIUS LAWSON, Defendant.

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

OPINION AND ORDER

The Defendant, Julius Lawson, is serving a sentence for his role in attempting to rob a person having custody of mail matter, money, or property of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a), using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and interfering with the performance of duties of an employee of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Judgment of Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 161], filed on December 5, 2017.

The Defendant's Motion is successive, the Court having previously denied a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [ECF No. 135], in an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 146] dated February 27, 2017. Prisoners are barred from filing second or successive habeas petitions unless they obtain certification to do so from the court of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (providing that a "second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals"); Suggs v. United States, 705 F.3d 279, 282 (7th Cir. 2013) ("Without authorization from the court of appeals, the district court has no jurisdiction to hear the petition." (citing Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 152-53, (2007))); United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845, 849 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that unless the defendant "seeks and obtains permission from the court of appeals to file [a second or successive] motion, the district court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request").

CONCLUSION

Because the Defendant has not obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second habeas motion, the Court DISMISSES FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION the Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 161].

SO ORDERED on December 7, 2017.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT