United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court for consideration of the pro se
petition to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed by Petitioner Anthony Curtis
Bullock. For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses
Factual and Procedural History
pled guilty to a drug conspiracy charge, and the Court
sentenced him to 216 months pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
agreement. He filed a direct appeal and the Fourth Circuit
affirmed in part and dismissed the appeal in part. United
States v. Bullock, 493 F. App'x 457 (4th Cir. 2012).
November 19, 2012, Petitioner filed a § 2255 petition.
ECF No. 733. After briefing, the Court denied the petition on
the merits. ECF No. 751. He filed a direct appeal, but the
Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute.
ECF No. 767-1.
filed another motion challenging his conviction and sentence
on October 9, 2015, which the Court construed as a successive
§ 2255 petition. ECF No. 931. He had not received
permission from the Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. §
2244 to file a successive petition, so this Court dismissed
the petition for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 935.
filed the instant § 2255 petition on April 21, 2016,
asserting that he is entitled to relief under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). ECF. No. 957 Once
again, he has not received permission from the Fourth Circuit
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file this successive petition.
Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's
petition. He has filed a previous § 2255 petition and
has not obtained permission from the Fourth Circuit to file a
second or successive petition. A second or successive
petition must be certified as provided in § 2244 by a
panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain:
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable
factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense;
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to
cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Petitioner has filed a previous § 2255 petition, the
present petition is second or successive. He has not received
an order from the Fourth Circuit authorizing a second or
successive petition. Consequently, the Court is without
jurisdiction to consider it. See In re Vial, 115
F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997) (noting that the petitioner
must seek permission from the circuit court to file a second
or successive petition under § 2255); Burgess v.
Warden, No. 2:11-1621-CMC, 2011 WL 4345430, at *2
(D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2011) (“As Petitioner is no doubt
well aware, prior to filing a second or successive motion
under § 2255, he must obtain certification by a panel of
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals allowing him to file a
second or successive motion. As provided in 28 U.S.C. §
2244, ‘[b]efore 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.' 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). This he has