# Williams v. United States

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · July 19, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237310

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 19, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237310

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or successive habeas petition”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

DORIAN WILLIAMS, )
)
Movant, )
)
v. ) No. 4:22-cv-00732-HEA
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)
Respondent. )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of movant Dorian Williams’s motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1). Having
reviewed the motion, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny and dismiss the
motion because it is successive, and because movant has not sought authorization for this Court to
consider the application from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
Background
Movant is a self-represented litigant who is currently an inmate at the United States
Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri. On March 31, 2010, he was indicted
for conveying false information concerning a commercial aircraft bombing in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 35(b), and for conveying a false telephone threat to kill and injure individuals and damage
and destroy property by means of an explosive in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). United States v.
Williams, No. 4:10-cr-194-HEA-1 (E.D. Mo.). Following a jury trial, movant was convicted on
both counts. On November 21, 2011, he was sentenced to a total term of 100 months’
imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
Movant filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2011. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment on August 30, 2012. United States v. Williams, 690
F.3d 1056, 1069 (8th Cir. 2012). On November 27, 2012, movant filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was placed on the docket on November
29, 2012. Williams v. United States, No. 12-7504 (2012). The petition was denied on March 4,

2013.
On June 18, 2014, movant’s attorney filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams v. United States, No. 4:14-cv-1107-HEA (E.D. Mo.). The
motion argued that movant had been improperly sentenced under the Career Offender Guideline.
The motion was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations,1 but movant asserted that
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), made a new rule of constitutional law “retroactive
to cases on collateral review.” The Court denied the motion on June 16, 2017. Movant did not file
an appeal.
Movant filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on July 6, 2022, by placing it in his
prison’s mailing system.2

1 Motions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 are subject to a one-year limitations period. Peden v. United States,
914 F.3d 1151, 1152 (8th Cir. 2019). In practice, this “usually means that a prisoner must file a motion within one year
of the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.” Mora-Higuera v. United States, 914 F.3d 1152, 1154
(8th Cir. 2019). If movant has filed a petition for writ of certiorari, the denial of such petition by the United States
Supreme Court fixes the point of finality for his or her conviction. See United States v. McIntosh, 332 F.3d 550, 550
(8th Cir. 2003). Here, movant’s petition for writ of certiorari was denied on March 4, 2013, giving him until March 4,
2014, to timely file a § 2255 motion. He did not file his first § 2255 motion until June 18, 2014, three months and
fourteen days late. However, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) also provides for a one-year limitations period from “the date on
which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the
Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.”
2 Under the prison mailbox rule, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is deemed timely filed when an inmate deposits it in the
prison mail system prior to the expiration of the filing deadline. See Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th
Cir. 1999).
The Motion
Movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence is typewritten
on a Court-provided form. In the motion, he challenges his conviction in United States v. Williams,
No. 4:10-cr-194-HEA. (Docket No. 1 at 1).
The motion contains one ground for relief, alleging a failure to hold a competency hearing.

(Docket No. 1 at 4). Specifically, movant states that “the trial court never conducted a competency
evaluation when there was substantial evidence” of him “being incompetent to stand trial.”
(Docket No. 1 at 13). He also accuses the prosecutor of violating his “right to due process by not
giving him a competency evaluation prior to his July 25, 2011 jury trial.” Likewise, movant asserts
that his trial counsel was ineffective for this same reason. (Docket No. 1 at 14).
Based on the failure to hold a competency hearing, movant asks the Court to order a new
trial. (Docket No. 1 at 12).
The Court notes that movant acknowledges filing an earlier 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in
Williams v. United States, No. 4:14-cv-1107-HEA. (Docket No. 1 at 3). According to movant, the

motion was denied because the defendant “argued that Descamps is inapplicable because § 844(e)
is a divisible statute.” (Docket No. 1 at 4).
Discussion
Movant is a self-represented litigant who has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings for the United States District Courts, the Court is required to undertake a preliminary
review of the motion before directing the United States to respond. Having reviewed the motion,
and for the reasons discussed below, movant’s § 2255 motion must be denied and dismissed as
successive.
A. Successiveness
A district court is not “required to entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus to
inquire into the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court of the United States if it
appears that the legality of such detention has been determined by a judge or court of the United
States on a prior application for a writ of habeas corpus.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). Rather, under the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal inmate seeking relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 must first receive certification from the court of appeals to file a second or
successive motion. United States v. Brown, 915 F.3d 1200, 1201 (8th Cir. 2019). See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in
the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the application”).
An inmate cannot evade this rule “by simply filing a successive [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion
in the district court.” Baranski v. United States, 880 F.3d 951, 955 (8th Cir. 2018). See also Boyd
v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating that authorization by the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals is a “prerequisite under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)…to the filing of a second or
successive habeas petition”). Instead, it is up to the Court of Appeals to determine whether movant
has made a prima facie case that he has satisfied the requirements of § 2255. See Woods v. United
States, 805 F.3d 1152, 1153 (8th Cir. 2015).
Here, as discussed above, movant filed a prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on June 18, 2014.
It was denied on the merits on June 16, 2017. The instant motion is therefore a second § 2255
motion. Before movant can bring a second or successive § 2255 motion in this Court, he must
receive authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Movant has
not sought or received such authorization. Therefore, the motion must be denied, and this action
dismissed.
B. Summary Dismissal
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts, the Court must dismiss a motion “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any

attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.”
As discussed above, it is plainly apparent that movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is successive,
and that movant has not sought or received authorization from the court of appeals for an order
allowing this Court to consider the application. Thus, the Court cannot entertain movant’s request
for relief. As such, the motion will be denied and this action dismissed.
C. Certificate of Appealability
The Court has considered whether or not to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (“Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an
appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from…the final order in a proceeding under section

2255”). In order to issue such a certificate, the Court must find a substantial showing of the denial
of a federal right. See Tiedeman v. Benson, 122 F.3d 518, 522 (8th Cir. 1997). “A substantial
showing is a showing that issues are debatable among reasonable jurists, a court could resolve the
issues differently, or the issues deserve further proceedings.” Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th
Cir. 1997). Movant has not made such a showing, so the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence (Docket No. 1) is DENIED AND DISMISSED AS SUCCESSIVE. See 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall not issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated this 19" day of July, 2022.

HENRY EDWARD ‘(oe
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10237310. Public record. Not legal advice.