United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division
KENNETH D. BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner Sean Lamont
Dudley’s pro se “Motion for Reconsideration
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 59(e).” [Doc. 4]
was convicted in this Court on one count of conspiracy with
intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and one count of aiding and
abetting the possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §
2. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 360-months’
imprisonment, and he is presently serving that sentence.
Judgment was entered on April 1, 1998, see United States
v. Dudley, 5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1 (W.D. N.C. ) [Doc. 67:
Judgment], and affirmed on appeal, United States v.
Dudley, 165 F.3d 20, 1998 WL 756911 (4th Cir. 1998)
(unpublished table decision).
September 27, 1999, Petitioner filed a § 2255 motion to
vacate, which the Court denied on the merits.
[5:99-cv-00152-FDW, Docs. 1, 24]. Petitioner’s appeal
was dismissed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Dudley v. United States, 46 Fed.Appx. 188 (4th Cir.
then, Petitioner has filed numerous § 2255 motions to
vacate that this Court has dismissed as unauthorized,
successive § 2255 motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2255(h). See 5:13-cv-00132-RLV; 5:13-cv-00161-RLV;
5:14-cv-00028-RLV; 5:14-cv-00043-RLV; 5:14-cv-00104-RLV;
5:17-cv-00127-FDW; 5:18-cv-00173-FDW; 5:19-cv-00046-FDW. Most
recently, on August 21, 2019, Petitioner filed a § 2255
motion to vacate again attacking the validity of his 1998
judgment. [Doc. 1].
Court denied this motion because Petitioner provided no
evidence that he had obtained authorization from the Fourth
Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act provides,
in relevant part, that before a prisoner may file a second or
successive motion under § 2255 challenging his federal
criminal judgment(s), he first must obtain authorization to
do so from the appropriate circuit court of appeals. 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). A district court
lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive §
2255 motion unless the motion has been certified in advance
by the appropriate appellate court. See §
2255(h); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
205 (4th Cir. 2003). As such, the Court dismissed
Petitioner’s § 2255 motion to vacate for lack of
jurisdiction. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 205.
now seeks an Order from this Court essentially reversing its
August 21, 2019 Order denying his Section 2255 Motion to
Vacate, Set Aside, Correct Sentence as successive. Petitioner
argues the same grounds he argued in this most recent §
2255 motion and again fails to provide evidence of having
obtained authorization from the Fourth Circuit.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, therefore, is
denied as an unauthorized, successive petition, for the same
reasons articulated by the Court in its Order of August 27,
2019 [Doc. 2].
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 4] is
DENIED as an unauthorized, successive
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule
11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and Section 2255
Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (in
order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims
debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000) (when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a
petitioner must establish both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
 Petitioner cites Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as grounds for
his motion. There is, however, no such rule. It appears
Petitioner intended to bring his motion pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a
motion to alter or amend a judgment “to be filed no