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
motions filed by Petitioner Anthony Gene Trappier entitled
“Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6), ”
ECF No. 188, and “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6),
” ECF No. 189. Because these filings challenge his
underlying conviction and sentence, the Court construes them
as petitions for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses the
Factual and Procedural History
pled guilty to charges of drug conspiracy and possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and the
Court sentenced him as a career offender to 262 months on the
drug charge and 60 months consecutive on the gun charge. He
filed a direct appeal, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
United States v. Trappier, 447 F. App'x 463 (4th
then filed a § 2255 petition, which the Court denied on
the merits after briefing. ECF Nos. 140, 162. After the Court
denied his motion to reconsider, ECF Nos. 167, 170, he filed
a direct appeal, but the Fourth Circuit declined to issue a
certificate of appealability and dismissed his appeal.
United States v. Trappier, 647 F. App'x 199 (4th
Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ
of certiorari. Trappier v. United States, 137 S.Ct.
then filed a motion in the Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 for permission to file a successive petition
under § 2255, but the Fourth Circuit denied the motion.
In re: Anthony Trappier, No. 17-110 (4th
Cir. Jan. 30, 2017).
Petitioner filed another motion in the Fourth Circuit under
28 U.S.C. § 2244 for permission to file a successive
petition under § 2255, but the Fourth Circuit again
denied the motion. In re: Anthony Trappier, No.
17-154 (4th Cir. Mar. 6, 2017).
filed the instant § 2255 petitions on March 24,
and April 17, 2017,  in which he generally challenges his
convictions and sentences. He has not received permission
from the Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file
these successive petitions.
Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's
petitions. He has filed a previous § 2255 petition and
has not obtained permission from the Fourth Circuit to file a
successive petition. A 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 petitions are successive. He has not received an
order from the Fourth Circuit authorizing a successive
petition. Consequently, the Court is without jurisdiction to
consider them. 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 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