Lee v. United States of America, No. 2:2019cv08007 - Document 2 (N.D. Ala. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 2/15/2019. (PSM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lee v. United States of America Doc. 2 FILED 2019 Feb-15 PM 02:06 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION MARIO ANTON LEE, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:19-cv-08007-LSC (2:00-cr-00347-LSC-JHE-1) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION The Court has before it Petitioner Mario Anton Lee’s (“Lee’s”) Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied. Lee is a frequent filer of § 2255 petitions. This Court has recently recited his numerous attempts and the courts’ rejections of those attempts in a Memorandum of Opinion and Order entered on August 21, 2018, in Lee v. United States, 18-cv08016-LSC. (Docs. 2 & 3.) There is once again no indication that Lee has obtained an authorizing order from the Eleventh Circuit before filing this motion. Accordingly, this Court is precluded from considering the successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2255(h), 2244(b)(3)(A); see also United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”). Lee’s § 2255 motion is due to be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment “shall” either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” This showing can be established by demonstrating that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner” or that the issues were “adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the court’s procedural ruling was correct. Id. Page 2 The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, a COA will not issue from this Court. The Court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum of Opinion. DONE and ORDERED on February 15, 2019. _____________________________ L. Scott Coogler United States District Judge 160704 Page 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.
