Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trappier v. United States

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

August 27, 2019

Anthony Gene Trappier, PETITIONER
v.
United States of America, RESPONDENT

          ORDER

          Terry L. Wooten Senior United States District Judge

         This 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.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         The Court will summarize the lengthy history of this case.

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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. 396 (2016).[1]

         Petitioner 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.

         Not to 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.

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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).

         Undeterred, 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.

         II. Discussion

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.