United States v. Larkins (Sampson), 670 F. App'x 1

Appellant Juma Sampson, pro se, sought (in 2014) a new sentencing hearing, an amended judgment showing two counts dismissed, and a $200 refund of special assessments tied to those dismissed counts.
Sampson was convicted in 2002; this Court partially vacated the conviction in 2004, and the government moved to dismiss two counts in 2005, which the district court granted.
Sampson filed a § 2255 motion in 2006; it was denied, and this Court issued a limited certificate of appealability; on remand the district court again denied relief and this Court denied further COA relief.
The district court denied Sampson’s 2014 motion rather than transferring it to this Court as a potential successive § 2255 motion.
This Court construed the 2014 filing as a successive § 2255 motion (challenging conviction and sentence) and analyzed whether the district court erred by denying instead of transferring; it also treated an alternative Rule 36 clerical-error theory and reviewed entitlement to a refund of special assessments.
The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the request for an amended judgment but exercised its supervisory power to order a $200 refund of the special assessments and otherwise rejected Sampson’s arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2014 filing is a successive § 2255 motion	Sampson sought sentencing relief and amended judgment, framing it as non-successive or clerical correction	Government argued it is a successive § 2255 and subject to § 2255(h) gatekeeping	Court held it was properly construed as a successive § 2255 motion and therefore subject to successive-motion rules
Whether district court should have transferred the motion to this Court under § 1631	Sampson argued denial was improper; transfer would permit review	Government argued transfer would be futile because the motion fails successive-motion standards	Court held transfer would have been futile and denial was not reversible error
Whether Sampson could obtain an amended judgment under Rule 36 (clerical correction)	Sampson sought entry of an amended judgment showing two counts dismissed	Government maintained the claim was previously litigated and barred by law of the case	Court held the Rule 36/clerical claim was barred by law of the case and affirmed denial of amended-judgment relief
Whether Sampson is entitled to refund of $200 in special assessments	Sampson sought refund of assessments paid on vacated/dismissed counts	Government opposed refund	Court exercised limited power to revisit prior rulings and ordered government to refund $200

Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2001) (§ 2255 is the usual vehicle for challenging federal conviction and sentence)
Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1996) (district courts should transfer unauthorized successive habeas/§ 2255 petitions to the court of appeals in the interest of justice)
Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (claims presented in a prior § 2255 motion must be dismissed as successive)
United States v. Williams, 475 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2007) (law-of-the-case doctrine prevents reconsideration of issues decided or that could have been decided earlier)
United States v. Minicone, 26 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 1994) (court may reconsider prior rulings for intervening change in law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice)