United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court for consideration of a filed by
Petitioner Shanita McKnight entitled “Pursuant to
Amendment 794 for Minor Role Adjustment and Sentence
Reduction Based on United States v. Quintero-Leyva.”
ECF No. 241. Because this filing challenges her underlying
sentence, the Court construes it as a petition for relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons stated
below, the Court dismisses the petition.
Factual and Procedural History
was convicted at trial of charges of drug conspiracy and
extortion by a public employee. The Court sentenced her to
240 months incarceration on both counts. ECF No. 162. She
filed a direct appeal, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
United States v. McKnight, 386 F. App'x 384 (4th
timely filed a § 2255 petition, which the Court denied
on the merits after briefing. ECF Nos. 187, 219. She filed a
direct appeal, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United
States v. McKnight, 512 F. App'x 309 (4th Cir.
about September 22, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant §
2255 petition, in which she asserts that she should be
resentenced in light of Amendment 794 to the sentencing
guidelines.She has not received permission from the
Fourth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 to file this
Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's
petition. She 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 petition is successive. She has not received an order
from the Fourth Circuit authorizing a 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 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 not done.”).
these reasons, Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant
to § 2255, ECF No. 241, is DENIED. ...