United States District Court, D. Rhode Island
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MARY M. LISI, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's, Albert J. Sliney ("Petitioner"), post-conviction "motion for relief of a watershed rule of law." See Docket No. 124 (capitals omitted). Petitioner requests that the Court grant him relief from an "unconstitutional sentence." Id. at 1.
Petitioner was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). United States v. Sliney, CR 01-012 ML. This Court sentenced Petitioner to 210 months in prison followed by 5 years of supervised release. Id.; Docket No. 40. Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. Id.; Docket No. 73.
After his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the First Circuit, Petitioner filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Sliney v. United States, C.A. No. 05-033-ML; Docket No. 1. This Court denied that motion in an extensive memorandum and order. Sliney v. United States, C.A. No. 05-033-ML (D.R.I. Sept. 12, 2006); Docket No. 44. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability and terminated Petitioner's appeal. Sliney v. United States, No. 06-2610 (1st Cir. March 2, 2007). Petitioner next filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 challenging this Court's jurisdiction in imposing a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. United States v. Sliney, CR No. 01-012; Docket No. 103. This Court determined that Petitioner's motion was clearly a second or successive § 2255 motion which the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine. Id.; Docket No. 106; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (requiring that a second or successive § 2255 motion be certified by a panel of the appropriate Court of Appeals in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2244).
Although titled by Petitioner as a "motion for relief of watershed rule of law, " Petitioner's motion attacks his sentence. The Court thus recharacterizes the motion as one "falling under § 2255 based on its content." United States v. Sevilla-Oyola, 770 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Ortiz, 741 F.3d 288, 291 (1st Cir. 2014) ("a motion's character depends upon its substance, not its application"). Petitioner is well aware that a federal prisoner "must obtain certification from a court of appeals before presenting" a second or successive habeas petition. Evans-Garcia v. United States, 744 F.3d 235, 237 (1st Cir. 2014). Petitioner did not seek permission from the Court of Appeals to file a subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, thus this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's motion. Pratt v. United States, 129 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 1997).
Therefore, Petitioner's motion is denied and dismissed for ...