Nelson v. U.S., 96-2883
Citation | 115 F.3d 136 |
Decision Date | 30 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-2883,96-2883 |
Parties | Richard A. NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Before KEARSE and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges and HAIGHT, District Judge.
Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered as follows:
(1) That, to the extent the district court dealt with the § 2255 motion on its merits, the judgment of that court be and it hereby is vacated for lack of jurisdiction in that court to entertain the motion, see Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996) ("AEDPA"); Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir.1996) (per curiam);
(2) That the motion for a certificate of appealability is therefore denied as moot;
(3) That the motion for leave to file the successive § 2255 motion in the district court is denied, as the claims that petitioner seeks to raise are not based on either a new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 p 8.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cintron–Caraballo v. United States
...the absence of such an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the filing of such successive motion. Nelson v. United States, 115 F.3d 136, 136 (2d Cir.1997). The First Circuit has indicated that “AEDPA's prior approval provision allocates subject matter jurisdiction to the ......
-
Poindexter v. Nash
...court of appeals has authorized the filing of that motion in the district court. see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); Nelson v. United States, 115 F.3d 136, 136 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam) (vacating "for lack of jurisdiction" a district court judgment that dealt with a successive § 2255 motion "on it......
-
Ferrazza v. Tessmer
...corpus in the absence of an order from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of such successive motion or petition. Nelson v. U.S., 115 F.3d 136 (2nd Cir.1997); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir.1997); cert den. 520 U.S. 1203, 117 S.Ct. 1571, 137 L.Ed.2d 714 (1997). Unless the c......
-
Myers v. Coleman, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-0975
...the absence of an order from the court of appeals authorizing the filing of such successive motion or petition. Nelson v. United States, 115 F.3d 136 (2nd Cir.1997); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 1997). Unless the court of appeals has given approval for the filing of aPage 8secon......