United States v. Norman

584 F. App'x 93
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 30, 2014
DocketNo. 14-7088
StatusPublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 93 (United States v. Norman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Norman, 584 F. App'x 93 (4th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Al-Lain Delont Norman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to preserve his right to challenge his sentence under Alleyne v. United, States, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). Because Norman previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, we conclude that the district court properly determined that it lacked the authority to grant his request. Norman must first obtain authorization from this court before raising a “second or successive” collateral attack on his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Paul Winestock, Jr.
340 F.3d 200 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)
Alleyne v. United States
133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 F. App'x 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-norman-ca4-2014.