Pleasant v. USA, No. 3:2016cv00542 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 9/14/2016. Memorandum Opinion was mailed to Petitioner. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pleasant v. USA Doc. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COUR1 RICHl.iOND VA JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 3:16CV542 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a jury trial, this Court convicted Jeffrey A. Pleasant of two counts of interfering with commerce by threats or violence, two counts of carrying a relation to a crime of violence, firearm during and in two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. v. Pleasant, sentenced 31 F. Pleasant Memorandum Opinion App'x 91, to 622 and 92 States 2003), ECF motion, v. Nos. Pleasant Pleasant, 93-94. has of u.s.c. No. Since on April § inundated the The Court Id. 22, By 2003, the 2255 filed by Pleasant. 3:00CR71 the 2002). imprisonment. entered Court denied a motion under 28 United (4th Cir. months Order See United States (E.D. dismissal Court Va. of Apr. his § 22, 2255 with post-conviction motions challenging his federal convictions and state charges. The matter is now before the Court on Pleasant's "Writ for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to 28 U. s. C. § 1651 (a) . " ("Writ Dockets.Justia.com for Relief," ECF No. (capitalization 1 corrected).) As explained below, Pleasant's Writ for Relief must be treated as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the second successive or jurisdiction of the applications district for courts federal to habeas hear corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a "gatekeeping mechanism." v. Turpin, 518 U.S. omitted) . 651, 657 Specifically, (1996) "[b]efore Felker (internal quotation marks a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) (3) (A). § The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that collateral inmates attacks inventive labeling. on may not of judgment, vobis, audita and successive sentences Winestock, prohibition, 340 capias, habeas coram nobis, corpus the It is substance that controls." United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) v. Gramley, on by F. 3d "Call it a motion for a new trial, mandamus, querela, makes no difference. bar See United States v. 200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003). arrest the convictions their avoid 97 F.3d 185, 186-87 (7th Cir. 1996)). 2 coram name Melton v. (citing Thurman Thus, " [a] ny motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence, and substantively within the scope of under is a motion 2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the § cover." Cir. 2255 [(a}] , § Id. (citing Ramunno v. United States, 264 F.3d 723 (7th 2001}}. successive asserts or petitioner's Mccalister, in original} In other [habeas] words, petition reasserts a a if it federal underlying "motion in 776, basis 778 a second substance for conviction.'" 453 F. App'x. is or relief 464 the States United Boone, effect from (10th Cir. 2011} (quoting Spitznas v. or v. (alteration F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006}}. Pleasant now argues that he has been denied the ability to seek relief violated newly through speedy discovered nauseam to 2255, § trial provisions, evidence. Pleasant, any criminal convictions, that As and the attempt Accordingly, Circuit Pleasant's has that Court to he prosecution has has challenge purported explained his ad federal not successive § § 2255 motion. See Melton, the Writ for Relief is properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. Fourth federal no matter the label, will be dismissed as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C. 359 F.3d at 857. his authorized 2255 § 2255 motion. this motion, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 3 Court the Because the to action entertain will be appeal may not be taken from the final order in a An 2255 § proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability ( "COA") . U.S.C. 28 § A COA will 2253 (c) (1) (B). not issue unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional requirement is debate whether should have issues right." satisfied (or, been presented for proceed further.'" fails to when that matter, in a 'adequate Estelle, 2253 (c) (2). to that encouragement 529 U.S. 473, 484 880, standard. could the petition manner or deserve This jurists agree that) different 463 U.S. satisfy this § "reasonable Slack v. McDaniel, (quoting Barefoot v. Pleasant only resolved were u.s.c. 28 893 & n.4 the to (2000) (1983)). Accordingly, a COA will be denied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Pleasant and counsel for the United States. It is so ORDERED. Date: Richmond, Virginia lft 2()/,6 j?.f{' /s/ Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
