539 F. App'x 918
10th Cir.2013Background
- Copeland, a federal prisoner, seeks a COA to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction.
- Copeland pleaded guilty in 2008 to felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced under ACCA to 180 months’ imprisonment.
- He did not file a direct appeal.
- He filed a first § 2255 motion in Feb. 2012, which the district court dismissed as time-barred, and we denied a COA on appeal.
- In July 2013, Copeland filed a second § 2255 motion, which the district court dismissed as unauthorized and second/successive; he seeks a COA on that ruling.
- The issue turns on whether a second or successive § 2255 motion may be entertained without circuit authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a second or successive § 2255 requires circuit authorization | Copeland | Government | Yes; authorization required; district court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Descamps retroactively affects timeliness under § 2255(f)(3) | Copeland | Government | Descamps cannot render a second motion timely without authorization |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | Copeland | Government | District court correct to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 F.3d 473 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (COA standard for denials of § 2255 certs.)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional bar for unauthorized second or successive motions.)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (newly recognized rights; timing not satisfied here without authorization.)