Winfield v. United States of America, No. 3:2011cv00316 - Document 2 (E.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 7/10/11. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR. , Petitioner, v. Civil UNITED STATES Action No. 3:llcv316 OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert Lee Winfield, filed a document which he coram nobis. Winfield, In No. nobis, to 28 2:95crl93 U.S.C. (AEDPA) prisoner pro se. styled as a petition for a writ of error criminal (E.D. Va.), 2255 the case, to vacate, § proceeding United States v. Court previously denied a set aside, or correct his Although styled as a petition for a writ of error coram the present The federal Winfield's motion under 28 U.S.C. sentence. a § action is in fact a successive motion pursuant 2255. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the sentences by establishing a Turpin, § 518 U.S. 2244(b)(3)(A) application court, for an 651, by of their wdatekeeping' 657 provides permitted validity (1996). convictions mechanism." Specifically, that tt[b]efore this section is a second filed in or and Felker v. 28 U.S.C. successive the district the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals order authorizing the district court to consider the application." Winfield United Court States therefore, has of not obtained Appeals for such the an order Fourth Circuit, Winfield § 2255 States v. cannot avoid Winestock, inmates that result by styling may 340 F.3d 200, not 207 circumvent (4th Cir. the his 28 U.S.C. v. 218 Sawyer, 239 v. federal 451 F.3d 31, on successive A motion pursuant to applies June 25, only available to sentence). a 2007) No. the Pack v. 2000); see also United States 2001) (1st Cir. when See (holding that a writ of applicant 2:88cr76, 2007 is WL not in 1835526, custody) ; at *2 n.l (explaining that coram nobis relief is not petitioner Accordingly, jurisdiction. conviction and sentence. (5th Cir. 37 United States, (E.D. Va. 1 a F.3d 448, nobis Harris See United § 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack on imposition of coram present 2003) (emphasizing limitations § 2255 motions simply by inventive labeling). Yusuff, and, relief. motion as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. the the this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his successive application for that from who, the like Winfield, action will be is serving DISMISSED for a life lack of The Court will DENY a certificate of appealability.1 An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability proceeding ("COA") . a 28 prisoner U.S.C. makes constitutional § "a right." 2253 (c) (1) (B) . substantial 28 U.S.C. A COA will showing § of not the 2253(c)(2). issue unless denial This of a requirement is satisfied only when "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 presented were *adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. standard. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Winfield has not satisfied this The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to Winfield. It is so ORDERED. Robert E. Payne /££/ Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Date: Virginia XU f
]]>
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.
