Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mitchell v. Bledsoe, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Dwayne Mitchell. The district court had construed Mitchell's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied it, but did not dismiss it as successive. The appeals court found that because Mitchell did not obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked authority to consider it. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Mitchell's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-02-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7636

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Dwayne Mitchell. The district court had construed Mitchell's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied it, but did not dismiss it as successive. The appeals court found that because Mitchell did not obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked authority to consider it. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Mitchell's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    Mitchell v. Bledsoe, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Dwayne Mitchell. The district court had construed Mitchell's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denied it, but did not dismiss it as successive. The appeals court found that because Mitchell did not obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked authority to consider it. The appeals court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Mitchell's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-7636

    DWAYNE MITCHELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    BRIAN A. BLEDSOE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-01-112)

    Submitted:

    January 31, 2002

    Decided:

    February 8, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Dwayne Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dwayne Mitchell seeks to appeal from the district courts
    order construing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2241 (West
    1994) as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and
    denying it.

    Although Mitchells 2255 motion was successive, the

    district court did not dismiss it on that basis.

    Because Mitchell

    did not obtain authorization from this court to file his successive
    2255 motion in the district court, the district court lacked
    authority to consider it.

    See 28 U.S.C.A. 2244(b)(3) (West 1994

    & Supp. 2001). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability


    and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like