SPAULDING
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court dismissed the petitioner's unauthorized successive motion to vacate sentence for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner, serving a sentence for Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses, filed a successive motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner John Martin Spaulding is serving a 456-month prison sentence for two Hobbs Act robbery offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and two counts of discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Crim. Doc. 58, Judgment).1 This case is before the Court on Spaulding’s unauthorized successive Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (Civ. Doc. 1, Successive § 2255 Motion). Spaulding raises five grounds in the Successive § 2255 Motion. He asserts that (1) Hobbs Act robbery is not a “crime of violence” under § 924(c) because the Hobbs Act robbery statute “is an indivisible statute that sets forth multiple alternative means of violating the statute”; (2) appointed counsel in Spaulding’s
141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), invalidates his § 924(c) convictions. Spaulding previously moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2016. (See Case No. 3:16-cv-841-MMH-JRK, Doc. 35, Amended First § 2255 Motion; Doc. 36, Memorandum). In the Amended First § 2255 Motion, filed in Case No. 3:16-cv-841-MMH-JRK, Spaulding argued, through appointed counsel, that his § 924(c) convictions violated due process because they rested on the “residual clause,” § 924(c)(3)(B), which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). This
Court denied the Amended First § 2255 Motion on September 9, 2020. (Case No. 3:16-cv-841-MMH-JRK, Doc. 38). In doing so, the Court found that the “crimes of violence” underlying Spaulding’s § 924(c) convictions – i.e., the two Hobbs Act robbery offenses – qualified as “crimes of violence” under the use-of-
force clause, § 924(c)(3)(A), not the residual clause. Id. at 9–10. Therefore, the Court concluded that Spaulding’s § 924(c) convictions were not unlawful and were not contrary to Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319. This Court also denied Spaulding a certificate of appealability (COA). Spaulding filed a notice of appeal, but on February2, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals likewise denied
Spaulding a COA. Spaulding v. United States, No. 20–13691–F, 2021 WL 1327804 (11th Cir. Feb.2, 2021).2 About seven months after the Eleventh Circuit denied a COA, Spaulding filed the instant Successive § 2255 Motion. However, because Spaulding previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same judgment and it was denied, he was required to obtain permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before filing the Successive § 2255 Motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”).3 Spaulding did not obtain authorization to file the current motion.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals….”
3. The Clerk shall close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 7th day of September, 2021.
United States District Judge le 19 Copies: Parties and counsel of record