USA v. Johnson

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document 1083° Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
v. | . CRIM. NO. JKB-16-0363 -
MARQUISE MCCANTS, oF
Defendant. a *
% rd * * * | * * _o* ‘* * * ok
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Invoke Structural Error Review. (ECF
No. 1075.) Specifically, Defendant alleges a Confrontation Clause violation, error in the jury
instructions, and an Apprendi error at his sentencing. The Court construes this as a motion to
vacate Defendant’s conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because that is the only pathway
which permits him to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence on the above grounds.

However, Defendant previously filed a motion to vacate his sentence under § 2255 in
February 2024. (ECF No. 1056.) The Court denied that motion in November 2024. (ECF No.
1072.) To file a second motion to vacate under § 2255 in this Court, Defendant must first receive
authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2244(b), 2255(h). Defendant has not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file the
instant Motion in this Court. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter, United States
v. Winestack, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003). However, the Court will provide Defendant with
a packet of instructions which he must follow if he wishes to seek authorization from the Fourth

Circuit to file another motion to vacate under § 2255 in this Court.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION .
GPO

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document 1083 _ Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 3

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the
Court is required to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse
to the applicant. A certificate of appealability is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” to an appeal from
the Court’s order. United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 2007). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Where, as here, a motion is denied on a procedural ground, a certificate
of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can “demonstrate both (1) that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and (2) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
its procedural ruling.” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal marks omitted).
Petitioner does not satisfy the above standards. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not
issue.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Invoke Structural Error Review (ECF No. 1075) is DENIED;
2. Acertificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE;
3. The Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Memorandum and Order and a copy of
the instructions and form packet for filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244
(authorization of District Court to consider second or successive application for relief)
to Defendant; and

4. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

Dated this _/ 6 day of December, 2025.

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document 1083 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 3

BY THE COURT:

Feith Bishe

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge