United States v. McKinnon ( 1999 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                      No. 99-7192
    HAROLD GREEN MCKINNON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville.
    W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-91-56-BR, CA-99-462-5-BR)
    Submitted: December 7, 1999
    Decided: December 28, 1999
    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS,
    Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Harold Green McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Evenson, II,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-
    lee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Harold Green McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court's orders
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 1999) motion without
    prejudice and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district
    court dismissed the § 2255 motion for failure to receive authorization
    from this court to file a second or successive motion, as required by
    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2244
     (West Supp. 1999). McKinnon filed his first
    § 2255 motion on May 16, 1996, challenging his drugs and firearm
    convictions. The district court granted McKinnon's§ 2255 motion in
    part, vacated his 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 924
    (c) (West Supp. 1999) conviction
    in light of Bailey v. United States, 
    516 U.S. 137
     (1995), and resen-
    tenced him. On resentencing, the district court found that McKinnon
    possessed a firearm in relation to the drug violations, and imposed a
    sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 2D1.11(b)(1) (1997). McKinnon appealed the amended
    judgment after resentencing and the portion of the district court's
    order denying his other § 2255 claims. This court affirmed the district
    court's orders.
    McKinnon filed a second § 2255 motion on July 19, 1999, chal-
    lenging the amended judgment after resentencing. He alleged that he
    received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his due process
    rights were violated because he was resentenced based upon inaccu-
    rate information. On July 21, 1999, the district court dismissed McK-
    innon's motion without prejudice for failing to receive authorization
    from this Court as required by 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2244
    . McKinnon filed
    a motion for reconsideration, arguing that he did not need to file a
    motion for authorization because he was only challenging the
    amended sentence, and cited this court's recent decision in In re
    Taylor, 
    171 F.3d 185
     (4th Cir. 1999). The district court denied the
    motion by margin order. McKinnon noted a timely appeal of the
    orders dismissing his § 2255 motion and motion for reconsideration.
    Under the AEDPA, a "second or successive"§ 2255 motion may
    not be filed in the district court unless the movant has received autho-
    rization from the Court of Appeals after filing a§ 2244 motion. In
    Taylor, this court held that a § 2255 motion is not "second or succes-
    2
    sive" within the meaning of the AEDPA if the movant "expressly
    seeks to raise only those issues that originated at the time of his resen-
    tencing, after his first § 2255 petition has been granted. Thus, it is [the
    movant's] first opportunity to assert new issues which arose during
    his resentencing hearing." Taylor, 
    171 F.3d at 187-88
    . Therefore,
    when a movant seeks to vacate an amended sentence on grounds that
    arose during resentencing, the § 2255 may be filed directly in the dis-
    trict court without authorization from this court. See id.
    Therefore, under Taylor, the second § 2255 motion that McKinnon
    seeks to file in the district court is not successive. The district court
    erred in dismissing the § 2255 motion for failure to receive authoriza-
    tion from this court to file a second or successive motion. Likewise,
    the district court erred in denying McKinnon's motion to reconsider
    the dismissal. We grant a certificate of appealability and remand the
    case to the district court to be filed in accordance with Taylor.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
    tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-7192

Filed Date: 12/28/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014