United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. Grimm United States District Judge.
Hopkins received a life sentence in 2001, and since has filed
six motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct
what he perceives to be an illegal sentence. ECF Nos. 105,
112, 133, 165, 168, 190. I denied two of his motions, ECF
Nos. 165 and 168, without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
because the Fourth Circuit had not authorized Mr. Hopkins to
file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ECF No. 177.
On June 21, 2016, the Fourth Circuit authorized Hopkins to
file another § 2255 motion, ECF No. 189, and he filed
his most recent motion that same day, ECF No. 190. That
motion, filed with the assistance of counsel appointed from
the Federal Public Defender's Office, remains
Hopkins also has filed two motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), seeking reductions in his sentence based
on amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. ECF
Nos. 140, 178. Both were denied. ECF Nos. 158, 183.
October 14, 2015, Mr. Hopkins filed a motion to reconsider
the order denying his second § 3582 motion. ECF No. 184.
In it, he argues for reconsideration on the basis that he is
actually innocent and that he received an illegal sentence
under 18 U.S.C. § 3559 because he did not meet the
requirements for a life sentence. Id. He insists
that “from [the] jump the parties knew it was illegal
but force[d] [him] to serve sentences way beyond the sentence
[he] should [have] rec[ei]ved.” Id.
for reconsideration of final judgments or orders in criminal
cases are not authorized by either statute or the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.” Kemache-Webster v.
United States, No. RWT 10CR654, 2014 WL 12691589, at *1
(D. Md. Aug. 7, 2014) (quoting United States v.
Moore, 13-7930, 2014 WL 2142111 (4th Cir. May 22,
2014)). Indeed, when a prisoner is dissatisfied with a ruling
on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, “he may timely appeal
it. But he may not . . . ask the district court to reconsider
its decision.” United States v. Goodwyn, 596
F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, I will deny his
motion. See id.; Kemache-Webster, 2014 WL
12691589, at *1.
that, although Mr. Hopkins filed the motion as one for
reconsideration rather than another § 2255 motion, what
he seeks is the relief available under § 2255 - for an
allegedly illegal sentence, that was illegal “from
[the] jump, ” to be vacated or corrected. But, as yet
another § 2255 motion, filed before the Fourth Circuit
authorized him to file another § 2255 motion, this Court
would be without jurisdiction to consider it. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). In any event, his pending
§ 2255 motion raises the same argument that his sentence
was illegal, which the Court will consider.
decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Mr.
Hopkins has not made a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.”
it is, this 24th day of May, 2017,
hereby ORDERED that
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 184, IS
Certificate of Appealability WILL NOT ISSUE;
Hopkins's § 2255 Motion, ECF No. 190, remains
Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of ...