United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Scott Coogler United States District Judge
Court has before it Petitioner Mario Anton Lee's
(“Lee's”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1.)
For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
not Lee's first effort. In fact, Lee has been a frequent
filer. After being convicted in March 2001 of one count of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C), one count of
possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C), one count
of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(D), and three counts of money laundering, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i); and after
being sentenced in June 2001 to a total sentence of 105 years
imprisonment; and after having had his conviction and
sentence affirmed on direct appeal, Lee filed a Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 on September 29, 2003. See generally Lee v.
United States, 2:03-cv-8039-LSC-RRA. That Motion was
denied by this Court on September 20, 2006. Lee attempted to
appeal the ruling denying him relief but was denied a
Certificate of Appealability by the Eleventh Circuit Court of
led Lee to file, on January 8, 2013, what he styled as a
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(B) Motion.”
That motion was denied on January 14, 2013. Lee attempted to
appeal but was denied a Certificate of Appealability by the
Eleventh Circuit on July 1, 2013.
to be deterred, on August 14, 2013, Lee filed another motion,
this time citing “Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
Section 3742(a)(1).” That motion was denied on December
11, 2013. This Court expressly informed Lee that he must seek
authorization from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
before filing what is in essence a successive § 2255
motion. Lee was once again denied a Certificate of
Appealability by the Circuit Court, this time on August 15,
then filed what he styled a “Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(4)(6) Motion” on September 23, 2015.
This Court denied that motion as another illegal successive
§ 2255 motion on October 5, 2015.
September 13, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit denied Lee's
direct request for leave to file a successive § 2255
petition. Despite being denied permission from the Eleventh
Circuit, Lee nonetheless filed in this Court the instant
§ 2255 motion on April 14, 2017.
not obtain an authorizing order from the Eleventh Circuit
before filing this motion. In fact, he was expressly denied
one in September 2016. Accordingly, this Court is precluded
from considering the successive § 2255 motion.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3)(A);
see also United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175
(11th Cir. 2005) (“Without authorization, the district
court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive
§ 2255 motion is due to be denied for lack of
pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255
Proceedings, the Court has evaluated the claims within the
petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of
appealability (“COA”). Rule 22(b) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal is
taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the
judgment “shall” either issue a COA or state the
reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the
petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be
established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different
manner” or that the issues were “adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot
v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For
procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable
jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the
court's procedural ruling was correct. Id.
Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its
resolution of the claims presented in this habeas corpus