Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Barefoot v. Revell, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his filing styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court properly concluded it was actually a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he was challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the motion because Barefoot had previously filed a § 2255 motion and did not receive authorization from the appeals court to file a second or successive motion, as required. The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, noting Barefoot also failed to show he was entitled to authorization to file another § 2255 motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-03-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-7478

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his filing styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court properly concluded it was actually a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he was challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the motion because Barefoot had previously filed a § 2255 motion and did not receive authorization from the appeals court to file a second or successive motion, as required. The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, noting Barefoot also failed to show he was entitled to authorization to file another § 2255 motion.

    Copyright:

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

    Barefoot v. Revell, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr. appealed the district court's dismissal of his filing styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The court properly concluded it was actually a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he was challenging his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the motion because Barefoot had previously filed a § 2255 motion and did not receive authorization from the appeals court to file a second or successive motion, as required. The appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal, noting Barefoot also failed to show he was entitled to authorization to file another § 2255 motion.

    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. 10-7478

    CHARLES ROBERT BAREFOOT, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    SARAH REVELL; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02030-FL)

    Submitted:

    March 15, 2011

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    WYNN,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    March 18, 2011

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Robert Barefoot, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Robert

    Barefoot,

    Jr.,

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts order dismissing his filing styled as a 28 U.S.C. 2241


    (2006)

    petition.

    Because

    Barefoot

    was

    challenging

    his

    conviction and sentence, the court properly concluded that the


    pleading was a 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion.

    The

    court dismissed the action because Barefoot previously sought


    relief under 2255 and he did not have authorization from this
    court

    to

    file

    second

    or

    successive

    U.S.C.A. 2255(h) (West Supp. 2010).

    such

    motion.

    See

    We conclude the court

    properly dismissed the action.

    Accordingly, we affirm.

    note

    show

    Barefoot

    has

    failed

    to

    28

    that

    he

    is

    We also

    entitled

    to

    authorization from this court to file a second or successive


    2255 motion.

    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.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like