Townsend v. USA

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUG 4, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10188
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 4:10-cv-00287-BAE-GRS
4:98-cr-00106-BAE-GRS-4
BRUCE BERNARD TOWNSEND,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 4, 2011)
Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Townsend appeals pro se the dismissal of his motion to vacate. 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The district court dismissed Townsend’s motion as successive, id.

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 2244(b)(3), but the United States concedes that the district court had failed to
notify Townsend before reclassifying an earlier pleading as a motion to vacate, as
required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 124 S. Ct. 786 (2003).
Consequently, Townsend’s motion to vacate is not successive. We VACATE the
order dismissing Townsend’s motion to vacate as successive, and we REMAND
for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --