United States of America v. Carl Javan Ross

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-03708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. vw * CRIM. NO. JKB-16-00020 CARL JAVAN ROSS, os

_ Defendant. * * * * * _* * * * * □□□ * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 2255. (ECF No. 173.) Defendant previously filed a motion to vacate his’ sentence under § 2255’ in November 2019. (ECF No. 138.) The Court denied that motion in January 2021. (ECF No. 154.) To file a second motion.to vacate under § 2255 in this Court, Defendant must first receive authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255(h). Defendant has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file the instant Motion in this Court. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). However, the Court will provide Defendant with a packet of instructions which he must follow if he wishes to seek

- authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file another motion to vacate-under § 2255 in this Court, Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court i required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when. enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” to an appeal from _the Court’s order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a motion is denied on a procedural ground, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can “demonstrate both (1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal marks omitted). Petitioner does not satisfy the above standards. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not issue. For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (ECF No. 173) is DENIED; 2. Acertificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE; 3. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Memorandum and Order and a copy of the instructions and form packet for filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (authorization of District Court to consider second or successive application for relief) to Defendant; and 4. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

Dated this / day of November, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

James K. Bredar United States District Judge