United States v. Alton Couther, III ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6884
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALTON B. COUTHER, III,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:12-cr-00187-RAJ-TEM-1)
    Submitted: August 24, 2021                                        Decided: August 27, 2021
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alton Bernard Couther, III, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Alton B. Couther, III, appeals the district court’s order construing his pro se petition
    for a writ of audita querela, pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1651
    (a), as his first 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    motion and dismissing it sua sponte as untimely. Because the district court did not provide
    Couther with an important procedural protection, we vacate the order and remand for
    further proceedings.
    In Castro v. United States, 
    540 U.S. 375
     (2003), the Supreme Court held that a court
    may not recharacterize a pro se motion as the movant’s “first § 2255 motion unless the
    court informs the litigant of its intent to recharacterize, warns the litigant that the
    recharacterization will subject subsequent § 2255 motions to the law’s ‘second or
    successive’ restrictions, and provides the litigant with an opportunity to withdraw, or to
    amend, the filing.” Id. at 377. The district court did not follow the dictates of Castro here:
    it did not advise Couther of its intent to recharacterize his petition as a § 2255 motion, warn
    him of the ensuing consequences, or provide him with an opportunity to avoid those
    consequences.
    Due to this substantial notice problem, we vacate the court’s order and remand for
    further proceedings.    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6884

Filed Date: 8/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/27/2021