# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · April 16, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11327708

## Case

- **Full name:** Sacorey Clark v. United States of America
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** April 16, 2026
- **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/11327708

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SACOREY CLARK, )
Petitioner,
V. Case No. 4:25-cv-01279-JAR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of Petitioner Sacorey Clark’s Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons explained below, the Court
will deny the motion and dismiss this action without prejudice.
Background
On May 3, 2017, a jury found Clark guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). United States v. Clark, No. 4:16-cr-00107-JAR (E.D. Mo. 2016).
On May 9, 2018, this Court sentenced Clark to serve 180 months’ imprisonment after determining
that he qualified for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court’s
judgment. United States v. Clark, 934 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2019).
On February 2, 2021, Clark filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or
Correct Sentence. Clark v. United States, No. 4:21-cv-00127-JAR (E.D. Mo. 2021). He asserted
claims based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019); he claimed he should not have
received an enhanced sentence because he did not qualify as an Armed Career Criminal; and he
claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his appointed attorney failed to raise

certain arguments. Jd. This Court denied Clark’s motion on its merits on December 15, 2021, and
the Court of Appeals dismissed Clark’s appeal on December 12, 2022.
Clark filed the instant motion on August 18, 2025 to again challenge this Court’s judgment in
United States v. Clark, No. 4:16-cr-00107-JAR. He asserts four grounds for relief: (1) he is serving
an enhanced sentence even though the indictment did not charge a violation of the ACCA; (2)
the admission of certain testimony and evidence rendered his conviction unconstitutional; (3) his
claim premised upon Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021) is now ripe based on newer
case law; and (4) he was deprived of his right to appeal because his attorney did not understand
certain legal principles. Doc. 1 at 4-8 and 13-28.
On March 4, 2026, Clark filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Doc. 2. Briefly, he claimed he was serving an additional 60 months for a
crime not charged in the indictment, and he sought release from confinement, an order vacating
his sentence, and other relief. Jd. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on March 10, 2026
and issued its mandate that same date. Docs. 3 and 4.
Discussion
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.”).
The Court finds that the instant motion is a successive motion, and because Clark has not
obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file it, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain
it. The Court will therefore deny the motion and dismiss this action without prejudice. The
Court also finds that Clark has not met the burden for issuing a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Clark’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered with this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. See 28
USS.C. § 2253.
Dated this 16" day of April, 2026.

wc fe he
JO . ROSS
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11327708. Public record. Not legal advice.