United States of America v. Percy Dillon

BLD-277 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-1218
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PERCY DILLON,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 93-cr-00084-2)
District Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 21, 2007
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND VAN ANTWERPEN, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 19, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In 1993 Percy Dillon was convicted of various drug-related crimes and sentenced
to 322 months’ imprisonment. After we affirmed, Dillon embarked on a lengthy series of
unsuccessful post-conviction attacks on his sentence, including a motion pursuant to 18

-- 1 of 3 --

2
U.S.C. § 3582, a § 2255 motion, applications to file another § 2255 motion, a motion
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), an “Independent Action Under Rule 60(b)(6),” and
another § 2255 motion. We denied his various related requests for certificates of
appealability.
In December 2006 Dillon filed, in the same criminal action, a document titled
“Motion filed under LR 37.1, and LR 37.2 pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) of Fed.R.Civ.P.”
Although Dillon insists that his motion “does not affect the AEDPA and does not
constitute a second or successive petition and cannot be construed as such,” his motion
seeks the production of certain documents which form the basis for his allegations
concerning “perjurious statements to the court dealing with a material element of
impeachment value.” In particular, he alleges that the government’s failure to disclose
voucher payments violates the Jenks Act, that the voucher forms “are proof that [witness]
Williams perjured himself,” and that he should get a new trial as a result. The District
Court summarily denied the motion; this appeal followed.
By seeking a new trial, Dillon is challenging his conviction. However, as we have
previously explained, motions pursuant to § 2255 are the presumptive means by which
federal prisoners can do so. Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2002).
Because Dillon has previously filed § 2255 motions, he may not file another without first
obtaining permission from this Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 & 2255. Nor may he avoid
this process by resorting to Federal Rules of Procedure. The District Court had no choice

-- 2 of 3 --

3
but to deny Dillon’s motion and, as a result, the appeal does not present a substantial
issue. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying
Dillon’s motion.

-- 3 of 3 --