Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 F. App'x 191

Francis v. Brooks

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided February 3, 2003

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2003-02-03

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2003-02-03

*192 PER CURIAM.

¶1 Edghill Leo Francis seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition as a motion arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court that the claims Francis seeks to raise cannot be pursued under § 2241. Because Francis has previously filed a motion seeking relief under § 2255, see United States v. Francis, No. 99-6042, 1999 WL 147849 (4th Cir. Mar.18, 1999) (unpublished), however, he must seek authorization from this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) prior to filing a successive motion under § 2255. Because Francis has not received this authorization, the district court properly dismissed his motion without prejudice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

¶2 DISMISSED.

/55/fappx/191 · .json · Public domain