Harold Williams v. USA, No. 10-13084 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-13084 MARCH 21, 2012 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 8:04-cr-00434-RAL-TBM-2 HAROLD WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________________________ (March 21, 2012) Before EDMONDSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Harold Williams appeals the district court s denial of his pro se postconviction motion, which the district court construed as a time-barred 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. The district court issued a certificate of appealability ( COA ) on whether it failed to provide Williams with the notice and warning mandated by Castro v. United States, 124 S.Ct. 786 (2003). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. Under Castro, a district court cannot recharacterize a pro se litigant s motion as an initial section 2255 motion without first (1) notifying the litigant that it intends to recharacterize the motion; (2) warning the litigant that this recharacterization means that later section 2255 motions would be subject to the restrictions on second or successive section 2255 motions; and (3) giving the litigant the opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it to include all of the litigant s claims. Castro, 124 S.Ct. at 792. If the court fails to do so, the motion cannot be considered to have become a § 2255 motion for purposes of applying to later motions the law s second or successive restrictions. Id. The requirements of Castro apply even when the district court denies a recharacterized section 2255 motion as untimely. Gooden v. United States, 627 F.3d 846, 849 (11th Cir. 2010). That the district court failed to give Williams the notice and warning required by Castro is undisputed. Williams s remedy for this error is that -- should 2 he file a later section 2255 motion -- it cannot be barred as second or successive based on the instant recharacterized motion. See Castro, 124 S.Ct. at 792. But because no other remedy, including remand, is available to address the district court s error, we affirm.* AFFIRMED. * Our review is limited to those issues specified in the COA. Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, we will not consider Williams s arguments about the substantive merits of his post-conviction motion. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
