USA v.Geno Rolle, No. 15-13027 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-13027 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:09-cr-80094-KLR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GENO ROLLE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (March 3, 2016) Before TJOFLAT, JILL PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 2 of 3 Geno Rolle, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct a “clerical error,” ostensibly filed pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rolle, who was convicted in 2009 of illegal re-entry of a deported alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), argues that the motion, which the district court construed as an unauthorized successive motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, was not a request to vacate the conviction, but a request to correct the indictment, which he contends incorrectly charged him with both entry and attempting to enter. Pursuant to § 2255, a prisoner in federal custody may move the court that imposed his sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence if it was imposed in violation of federal constitutional or statutory law, was imposed without proper jurisdiction, is in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). However, when a prisoner previously has filed a § 2255 motion to vacate, he must apply for and receive permission from this Court before filing a successive § 2255 motion. Id. §§ 2244(b)(3), 2255(h). Rolle’s motion, which explicitly requested that the district court vacate his sentence, was more aptly construed as a § 2255 motion to vacate. Therefore, as Rolle already had filed a prior § 2255 motion that was denied on the merits, the district court did not err in denying the instant motion as successive and unauthorized by this Court. See McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1329 2 Case: 15-13027 Date Filed: 03/03/2016 Page: 3 of 3 (11th Cir. 2002) (reviewing de novo the dismissal of a § 2255 motion as second or successive). AFFIRMED. 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.
