US v. Gerald Felton, No. 08-6452 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6452 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD FELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F; 5:08-cv-00050-F) Submitted: March 27, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gerald Felton seeks to appeal the district court s order denying as successive his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008). appealability on We the previously issue of granted whether the a certificate § 2255 motion of was properly dismissed as successive. The government concedes that Felton that was not provided notice his prior filing was construed as a § 2255 motion, and further notes that Felton was not informed Cir. his current motion was considered to be See United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128, 133 successive. (4th that 2008). As such, the government acknowledges, the instant motion under § 2255 should be considered Felton s first such motion. We have carefully reviewed the record and agree with the government s position. court s order denying the We therefore vacate the district § 2255 motion as successive, and remand for consideration of the motion as Felton s first § 2255 motion. dispense We deny Felton s motion for appointment of counsel and with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. VACATED AND REMANDED 2

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.