Nugent v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Nugent v. United States

255 F. App'x 526

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 31, 2007

DocketNo. 05-5293

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 F. App'x 526 (Nugent v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nugent v. United States, 255 F. App'x 526 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 19, 2005 and June 21, 2005, be affirmed. Because appellant’s Independent Action sought to present a new claim for relief from the criminal judgment against him, the district court properly treated the pleading as a second or successive application under § 2255 and determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion without certification by this court. See Gonzalez v. [527]*527Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition -will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 19, 2005 and June 21, 2005, be affirmed. Because appellant’s Independent Action sought to present a new claim for relief from the criminal judgment against him, the district court properly treated the pleading as a second or successive application under § 2255 and determined it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion without certification by this court. See Gonzalez v. [527]*527Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition -will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 F. App'x 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nugent-v-united-states-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack