United States District Court, D. Minnesota
K. Bell, Esq., United States Attorney's Office,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Maurice Woodard, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge
for a ruling on Plaintiff United States of America's (the
“Government”) Motion [Docket No. 543] to dismiss
Defendant Carl Maurice Woodard's (“Woodard”)
successive Motion Under 28 USC § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody
[Docket No. 527]. For the reasons set forth below, the
Government's Motion is granted and Woodard's motion
filed his first § 2255 motion in July 2012, alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Pro Se Mot.
Vacate [Docket No. 407]. The Court denied the motion in
August 2012 and declined to issue a Certificate of
Appealability (“COA”). See Mem. Op.
& Order [Docket No. 415]. Woodard appealed to the Eighth
Circuit, which denied his application for a COA and dismissed
his appeal. See J. USCA [Docket No. 436].
2016, Woodard filed this successive § 2255 Motion,
arguing that United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1
was improperly applied to enhance his sentence. On the same
day the successive § 2255 Motion was filed, Woodard also
sought authorization with the Eighth Circuit to file a
successive § 2255 motion. See Woodard v. United
States, No. 16-2882 (8th Cir.) [Appellate Docket No. 1].
March 24, 2017, the Government filed its motion to dismiss
Woodard's successive § 2255 Motion, arguing that
Woodard failed to secure permission from the Eighth Circuit
before filing the successive § 2255
March 30, 2017, the Eighth Circuit denied Woodard's
motion to file a successive § 2255 petition.
See J. USCA [Docket No. 544]; Mandate [Docket No.
§ 2255 motions are governed by paragraph (h) of §
2255, which reads:
A second or successive motion must be certified as provided
in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of
appeals to contain--(1) newly discovered evidence that, if
proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would
be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence
that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant
guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional
law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Because Woodard has failed to
obtain the requisite certification from the Eighth Circuit
under § 2255(h), Woodard's successive § 2255
Motion must be denied. See Hillv.
Morrison, 349 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 2003)
(“Before a trial court may consider a second or
successive § 2255 motion, however, a petitioner must