United States v. Akas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 15, 2000
• Docket: 00-6616
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

CYRIACUS AKAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-305, CA-00-985-JFM)

Submitted: August 10, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN* and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cyriacus Akas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

* Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM:

Cyriacus Akas appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Although

Akas’ § 2255 motion was a successive motion, the district court

denied it as untimely filed. Because Akas did not obtain authori-

zation from this court to file the motion in the district court,

the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it. See

Romandine v. United States, 206 F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 2000);

United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000); Hernandez

v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 866 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v.

Barrett, 178 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct.

1208 (2000); Lopez v. Douglas, 141 F.3d 974, 975-76 (10th Cir.),

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1024 (1998); Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d

333, 336 (8th Cir. 1997); Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th

Cir. 1997). We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244, 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED