Gooden v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25026

Gooden was convicted in 1993 of federal drug-trafficking crimes; this court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal in 1996.
In 2006 the district court reduced Gooden's sentence based on substantial assistance under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b).
In February 2008 Gooden, pro se, filed a 'motion to modify' seeking relief from supervised release; the district court re-characterized it as a § 2255 motion and denied as untimely under § 2255(f)(1).
Gooden did not appeal; in June 2008 he filed a pro se 'motion to compel' the government to file another Rule 35(b) reduction; the district court re-characterized this as a § 2255 motion and denied it as untimely and as unauthorized second/successive.
The court of appeals granted a certificate of appealability on whether the district court improperly denied the second or successive § 2255 motion.
Castro notice requirement holds that a district court must provide notice and warning before re-characterizing a pro se motion as a § 2255 motion; failure to do so requires vacatur and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court's re-characterization without Castro notice was proper	Gooden argues Castro requires notice before re-characterization.	Government argues exception applies when motion is untimely, but this is rejected.	Improper; Castro notice required; remand to provide notice.

Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (notice and warning required before recharacterizing pro se motions as § 2255)
United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (look behind labels to determine proper remedial framework)
Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 1998) (warning about consequences of second or successive § 2255 motions)
United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008) (Castro notice is mandatory and cannot be carved out)
McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2002) (review of dismissal of § 2255 second or successive motions)