United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court for consideration of numerous
motions filed by Petitioner Anthony Gene Trappier,
specifically a “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(d)(3),
” ECF No. 223; a “Motion to Re-Open, ” ECF
No. 226; and another “Motion to Re-Open, ” ECF
No. 227. Because these motions challenge his underlying
convictions and sentences, the Court construes them as
petitions for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He
also filed an actual petition for relief pursuant to §
2255. ECF No. 228. For the reasons stated below, the Court
dismisses the petitions.
Factual and Procedural History
Court will summarize the lengthy history of this case.
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, for
a total sentence of 322 months incarceration. He filed a
direct appeal, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed. United
States v. Trappier, 447 Fed.Appx. 463 (4th Cir. 2011).
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 Fed.Appx. 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.
be dissuaded, 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
also denied that motion. In re: Anthony Trappier,
No. 17-154 (4th Cir.), ECF Nos. 2, 7.
next filed motions in this Court 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, 699 Fed.Appx. 250 (4th Cir. 2017).
next filed two virtually identical motions, both entitled
“Motion to Re-Open.” ECF Nos. 205, 208. The Court
construed the motions as successive § 2255 petitions and
dismissed them on that basis, but also noted that, to the
extent they could be considered true Rule 60(b) motions, he
was not entitled to relief. ECF No. 209. The Fourth Circuit
concluded that they were better construed as true Rule 60(b)
motions, but declined to issue a certificate of appealability
and dismissed his appeal. United States v. Trappier,
712 Fed.Appx. 343 (4th Cir. 2018).
Petitioner filed the instant § 2255 petitions 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 ...