United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
November 12, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RALPH WAYNE ANGLE
JAMES T. MOODY, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant Ralph Wayne Angle's "Motion to Vacate Conviction Under 18 USC § 2422(b) For Lack Of Physical Contact As Explicitly Required By The Seventh Circuit's Post-Conviction Clarification Of Law In United States v. Taylor, 640 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011)" [sic]. (DE #355.) Defendant Angle raised this issue in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 which this court denied (DE #339), and in a motion for reconsideration which the court also denied. (DE #347.) On April 23, 2014, the Court of Appeals declined to issue a Certificate of Appealability, (Appeal No. 13-3567), and on June 23, 2014, it denied Angle's petition for rehearing en banc. On October 20, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. ___ U.S. ___, 2014 WL 4647417.
Although Angle's present motion is styled as a motion to vacate his conviction, without citation to the rule or statute Angle relies on for the court's authority to do so, that omission doesn't matter: the motion is a request for relief under § 2255. The caption that Angle put on it is immaterial, it is the substance of the motion that controls how his request for relief shall be treated. United States v. Carraway, 478 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Lloyd, 398 F.3d 978, 979-80 (7th Cir. 2005). Any post-judgment motion in a criminal case that fits the description of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence set forth in the first paragraph of § 2255 should be treated as a § 2255 motion. United States v. Evans, 224 F.3d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 2000); see also Lloyd, 398 F.3d at 980. Section 2255's first paragraph permits a federal prisoner to file a motion to have his sentence vacated, set aside, or corrected if it was "imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). This fits Angle's claim precisely, and so his motion must be treated as a request for relief pursuant to § 2255.
Because Angle's most recent filing is a request for § 2255 relief, it is subject to the requirement that second or successive motions under the statute must be authorized by the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Unless and until Angle seeks and obtains authorization from the Court of Appeals to file such a motion, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain his request. Nuñez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). Angle has not shown the court that he obtained authorization.
Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to: (1) docket Angle's motion (DE # 355) as a new (successive and second) § 2255 proceeding; and (2) immediately ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT in that proceeding stating that it is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. For the reasons given herein, Angle has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and no certificate of appealability will issue.