Legal Opinion

United States v. Uriel Carranza

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 25, 2012No. 11-3582UnpublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Uriel Carranza appeals from the district court’s 1 order recharacterizing his “motion for review of sentence” as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and denying it for lack of jurisdiction. Because Mr. Carranza’s motion was his second collateral attack on his sentence, and Mr. Carranza did not obtain this court’s authorization before filing his motion, it was the functional equivalent of an unauthorized successive section 2255 motion, and the district court properly denied it. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.2002) (prisoners may not bypass…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Castro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Timothy Melton v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2004
  3. Willie E. Boyd v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. Mario Howard LloydCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
  5. United States v. George Lemark PattonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Jackson v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2022
  2. Mims v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2022
  3. Strong v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API