United States v. Deleston , 116 F. App'x 454 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7288
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE DELESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-6649
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE DELESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DWAYNE DELESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-99-751; CA-02-3895-2-18)
Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
On January 2, 2002, Dwayne Deleston filed in the district
court a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(2000). Deleston challenged the legality of his indictment,
stating that it was defective because it failed to set forth the
elements of the offense, relevant drug quantities, and that it was
not signed by the grand jury foreperson. He also claimed that his
sentence was improperly enhanced in violation of the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual.
In an order entered on May 13, 2002, the district court
construed Deleston’s filing as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) and denied the motion on the merits. Deleston appealed,
(No. 02-7288), claiming that the district court erred in
recharacterizing his § 3582 motion as a § 2255 motion, relying on
United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2002).*
*
In Emmanuel, which issued on May 7, 2002, this court held
that the district court must give a prisoner notice and an
opportunity to respond before construing a mislabeled or unlabeled
post-conviction motion as an initial § 2255 motion:
We hold that if a prisoner files a motion that is not
denominated a § 2255 motion and the court at its option
prefers to convert it into the movant’s first § 2255
motion, the court shall first advise the movant that it
intends to so recharacterize the motion. The court shall
also notify the movant of the § 2255 restrictions on
second or successive motions, the one-year period of
limitations, and the four dates in § 2255 to be used in
determining the starting date for the limitations period.
The notice to the movant shall set a reasonable amount of
time for the prisoner to respond to the court’s proposed
recharacterization and shall advise the prisoner that
- 3 -
On November 18, 2002, while this appeal was pending,
Deleston filed in the district court a § 2255 motion--which he
believed was his first. On April 3, 2003, the district court
dismissed the motion as successive. Deleston’s appeal from that
order is No. 03-6649. Deleston also filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied; he has appealed from that order
as well (No. 04-6617). The three cases have been consolidated.
This court granted a certificate of appealability as to
Deleston’s claim that the district court erred in recharacterizing
his § 3582 motion as a § 2255 motion and then denying his § 2255
motion as successive. In United States v. Castro, 540 U.S. 375,
124 S. Ct. 786 (2003), the Supreme Court held that a court may not
recharacterize a pro se litigant’s mislabeled motion as § 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.” Castro, 124 S.
Ct. at 789.
failure to respond within the time set by the court will
result in the original motion being recharacterized as a
§ 2255 motion . . . . If, however, the movant responds
within the time set by the court but does not agree to
have the motion recharacterized, the court shall not
treat it as a § 2255 motion but shall rule on the merits
of the motion as filed.
Emmanuel, 288 F.3d at 649.
- 4 -
Under Emmanuel and Castro, the district court erred when
it failed to warn Deleston of the consequences of
recharacterization and provide him with an opportunity to withdraw
the motion. The district court erred again when it later dismissed
Deleston’s first designated § 2255 motion as successive. See id.
at 793 (holding when a district court fails to provide a pro se
litigant with the proper notice required before recharacterization,
the recharacterized motion “cannot count as a § 2255 motion for
purposes of the ‘second or successive’ provision.”).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders in all
three appeals and remand for further proceedings consistent with
Castro. We grant the government’s motion to file its informal
brief out of time and deny Deleston’s motions for appeal status, to
file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), and for summary
judgment. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 5 -