USA v. Johnson

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document 1085 — Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

v. | a CRIM. NO. JKB-16-0363
MARQUISE MCCANTS, *
Defendant. *
Pa a a
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion, which is styled as a motion for “rehearing |
and reinstatement of [his] application for structural error review.” (ECF No. 1084.) Defendant
seems to be seeking reconsideration of the Court's recent Memorandum and Order (ECF No.
1083), which rejected Defendant’s attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. In
that ruling, the Court explained that the relief Defendant sought could only be obtained througha —
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But because Defendant had already filed a § 2255 motion in
February 2024 (ECF No. 1056), which the Court denied in November 2024 (ECF No. 1072), he
first needed to receive authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
_ inorder to file a second § 2255 motion. Defendant had not received the required authorization, so
the Court possessed no jurisdiction over his motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
205 (4th Cir. 2003).

Defendant has still not received authorization from the Fourth Circuit to file a second §
2255 motion. And the instant Motion provides no basis for the Court to alter its conclusion that it
lacks jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s claims. Rather, the Motion rehashes the claims that

. 7
Defendant suffered “structural error” at his trial. While Defendant is free to make this argument,

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document 1085 _ Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3

oa

he must make it before the Court of Appeals. If that court determines that he meets the strict
requirements for authorization of a second or successive § 2255 motion, then Defendant may re-
; allege his claims in this Court. Because Defendant has not received the required authorization, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over his Motion, and it will be denied.
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 (ECF No. 1084) is DENIED;
2. A certificate 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

Case 1:16-cr-00363-JKB Document1085_ Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3

4. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE this case.

Dated this A day of February, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

wii Ee

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge