United States v. Sylver, 1:22-cr-00708

Earnest Sylver pled guilty to two counts of child pornography offenses in April 2023 and was sentenced in September 2023 to 168 months' imprisonment, below the advisory guidelines range after a downward variance.
Sylver previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his sentence, raising multiple grounds including sentencing-related claims; that motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
In July 2025, Sylver sent correspondence seeking to correct alleged sentencing errors and requesting resentencing to a 120-month term.
The court construed this correspondence as a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Under federal law, prisoners must obtain court of appeals authorization before filing a second or successive § 2255 motion in district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court can review and grant a successive § 2255 motion without appellate authorization	Government: District court lacks jurisdiction without Sixth Circuit approval	Sylver: Requests sentence correction based on perceived guideline error	Court lacks jurisdiction; transfer to Sixth Circuit required
Whether Sylver's new claims fall within exceptions to the 'second or successive' bar (e.g., new evidence or new rule of constitutional law)	Not addressed	Sylver: Argues sentencing error requires correction	Claims do not meet the exceptions; prior approval needed

United States v. Washington, 584 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2009) (sets forth lack of inherent authority for a district court to modify a sentence without statutory basis)
United States v. Carr, 421 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2005) (limits Rule 36 corrections to clerical errors only)
Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637 (1998) (discusses the bar on second or successive habeas petitions without appellate authorization)
Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023) (clarifies second-in-time § 2255 petitions require new evidence or new rule of constitutional law to bypass the successive petition bar)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (holding district court lacked jurisdiction to review unauthorised successive habeas petitions)