United States of America v. Omari Keisaun Mason

• Court: District Court, E.D. Virginia
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00499
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Criminal Action No. 3:21¢r57 Civil Action No. 3:26cv499 OMARI KEISAUN MASON, Petitioner.

MEMORANDUM OPINION By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered October 17, 2024, the Court denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed by Petitioner. United States v. Mason, No. 3:21-CR-57-HEH, 2024 WL 4520342, at *1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2024). The matter is before the Court on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner. For the reasons set forth below, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed as a successive, unauthorized 28 U.S.C, § 2255 motion. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 restricted the jurisdiction of the district courts to hear second or successive applications for federal habeas corpus relief by prisoners attacking the validity of their convictions and sentences by establishing a “gatekeeping mechanism.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, “[b]efore 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that inmates may not avoid the bar on successive collateral attacks on their convictions and sentences by inventive labeling. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). “Call it a motion for a new trial, arrest of judgment, mandamus, prohibition, coram nobis, coram vobis, audita

querela, certiorari, capias, habeas corpus, ejectment, quare impedit ... or an application for a Get-Out-of-Jail-Card; the name makes no difference. It is substance that controls.” Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Thurman v. Gramley, 97 F.3d 185, 186— 87 (7th Cir. 1996)). Thus, “[a]ny motion filed in the district court that imposed the sentence, and substantively within the scope of § 2255](a)], is a motion under § 2255, no matter what title the prisoner plasters on the cover.” /d. (citing Ramunno v. United States, 264 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2001). Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenges his conviction and sentence and falls within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). See United States v. Sessoms, 488 F. App’x 737, 738 (4th Cir. 2012) (construing petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) as a successive § 2255 motion). The Court has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file Petitioner’s successive § 2255 Motion. Accordingly, the Clerk will be directed to file the present action as unauthorized successive motion s under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The action will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. A certificate of appealability will be denied. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M. Hannah “Aa | L Chief United States*District Judge Date: to| IS [2 Lp Richmond, Virginia ' An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA will not issue unless a prisoner makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requirement is satisfied only when “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). Petitioner has not satisfied this standard.