United States v. Jacobs ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40514 Document: 00516635675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40514 February 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Edward Todd Jacobs,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:17-CV-216
______________________________
Before Stewart, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Edward Todd Jacobs, federal inmate # 19938-078, pleaded guilty to
attempted arson and solicitation of murder for hire and was sentenced to
concurrent 188-month terms of imprisonment. In 2017, Jacobs filed a 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the imposed sentences as violating his plea
agreement, which was dismissed as time barred. Two years later, he moved
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40514 Document: 00516635675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2023
No. 22-40514
to reopen his § 2255 proceedings, which the district court construed as a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion and denied. Jacobs then filed
the instant motion to reconsider, in which he attacked his sentence on
essentially the same grounds and again asked the district court to modify the
judgment to comport with the plea agreement. The district court denied
relief on the merits, and Jacobs has applied for a certificate of appealability
(COA) to appeal that ruling.
The district court’s consideration of Jacobs’s motion to reconsider on
its merits was error because that motion was in effect a successive § 2255
motion, and Jacobs had not obtained authorization to proceed from this
court. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 & n.4 (2005); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court thus had no jurisdiction to grant or deny
relief. See Davis v. Sumlin, 999 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly,
the district court’s order denying Jacobs’s motion to reconsider is
VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED with instructions to dismiss
the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Davis, 999 F.3d at 280. Jacobs’s COA
application is DENIED AS MOOT.
2