United States v. Samuel Walker , 167 F. App'x 796 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
February 17, 2006
No. 05-14711 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00108-CR-2-RBP-RRA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(February 17, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Walker, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s denial of his “Motion to Correct Unlawful Sentence.” The government
argues on appeal that the district court could only assume jurisdiction over
Walker’s motion by construing it as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but
that it failed to do so, and, therefore, did not have jurisdiction. Alternatively, the
government argues that if the motion was considered as a § 2255 motion, we lack
jurisdiction because Walker did not obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”).
Because we accept both of the government’s arguments, we do not address the
substantive issues.
Federal courts have an “obligation to look behind the label of a motion filed
by a pro se inmate and determine whether the motion is, in effect, cognizable under
a different remedial statutory framework.” United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622,
624-25 (11th Cir. 1990). Doing so may allow a court to avoid an unnecessary
dismissal or inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements,
or to create a better correspondence between the substance of the motion and its
underlying legal basis. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-82, 124 S.
Ct. 786, 791-92, 157 L. Ed. 2d 778 (2003). When a district court recharacterizes a
pro se motion as an initial § 2255 motion, it must notify the movant of the intended
recharacterization, advise him of the consequences of such recharacterization, and
provide an opportunity for the motion to be withdrawn or amended. Id. at 383, 124
2
S. Ct. at 792. If the district court fails to do so, the motion cannot be considered as
an initial § 2255 motion for purposes of determining whether a subsequent § 2255
motion is second or successive. Id.
A COA must be issued in order for an applicant to appeal a final order in a
proceeding under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). “If an
applicant files a notice of appeal, the district judge who rendered the judgment
must either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not
issue.” Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). We require district courts to treat a notice of
appeal of a § 2255 motion as an application for a COA, and we also require the
district court to rule upon an application for a COA before we will consider such a
request. Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997) (per
curiam).
Because the district court denied Walker’s motion without explaining the
source of its jurisdiction or the basis on which it made its decision, we do not know
whether the district court construed Walker’s motion as a § 2255 motion or
whether it denied the motion on the basis of some other authority.1 We therefore
vacate the district court’s order and remand this case to the district court for further
1
The district court’s order merely stated: “The Motion to Correct Unlawful Sentence filed
by the defendant, Samuel Walker on January 8, 2005 is DENIED. The court reiterates that it is
of the opinion that the sentence is too harsh. However, the court has no authority to reduce it.”
3
proceedings. On remand, the district court should either state that it is construing
Walker’s motion as a § 2255 motion, give Walker the Castro warnings, and
construe any subsequent notice of appeal as an application for a COA, or, if it
chooses not to proceed under § 2255, either (1) explain the basis for its
jurisdiction, or (2) dismiss Walker’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4