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
virtually identical motions filed by Petitioner Anthony Gene
Trappier, both entitled “Motion to Re-Open.” ECF
Nos. 205, 208. Because these motions 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 petitions.
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.), ECF
Nos. 2, 6.
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.), ECF No. 2, 7.
next filed motions 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, which the
Court construed as successive § 2255 petitions and
dismissed on that basis, ECF No. 191. The Fourth Circuit
agreed with the Court's construal of these motions as
successive petitions, denied him permission to file a
successive petition, and affirmed. Trappier v. United
States, F. App'x, No. 17-6833, ECF No. 8 (4th Cir.
Oct. 24, 2017).
filed the instant § 2255 petitions on August 25, 2017
and October 26, 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