Williams v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
EDWARD WILLIAMS, 	§
#70226-510 	§
§
Movant, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-00271-B
§ 	(No. 3:23-CR-00280-B-2)
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Movant Edward Williams, a prisoner at Okmulgee County Jail, filed this
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
generally 3:26-cv-0271-B, Doc. 2, Mot. Vacate; 3:23-cr-0280-B-2, Doc. 483, Mot. Vacate. But
Williams’s direct appeal is still pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. Therefore, the Court dismisses this civil action as premature.
I.
BACKGROUND
Williams pleaded guilty to one count in his underlying criminal action:
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, aiding and abetting
under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See 3:23-cr-0280-B-2,
J., Doc. 472. On January 9, 2026, the Court sentenced Williams to a total aggregate
sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. See id. at 2. Williams filed a notice of
appeal on January 14, 2026. See generally id., Doc. 475, Notice Appeal. At this
time, his direct appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit.
Case 3:26-cv-00271-B Document 3 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A defendant cannot collaterally attack his conviction until it has been affirmed on direct
appeal.” United States v. Bernegger, 661 F.3d 232, 241 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Fassler v.
United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1988)); see also Lopez v. United States, 2018
WL 3448557, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 25, 2018), rec. adopted, 2018 WL 3438908 (N.D. Tex.
July 17, 2018). When a § 2255 motion is filed during the pendency of a direct appeal, it
is “not 	entitled 	to 	consideration 	on 	the
merits.” Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). This is so
because the “disposition of the appeal may render the [§ 2255] motion moot.” United States
v. Fantozzi, 90 F. App’x 73, 74 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). When a movant seeks §
2255 relief while his direct appeal is pending, the district court should decline to address
the § 2255 motion and dismiss the action without prejudice. See Bernegger, 661 F.3d at
241 (“The District Court correctly determined that Bernegger’s habeas corpus petition was
not ripe for review.”); see also Cruz v. United States, 2013 WL 459932, at *1 (N.D. Tex.
Jan. 16, 2013) (recommending the § 2255 motion be summarily dismissed without
prejudice because it was filed while his direct appeal was pending), rec. adopted, 2013 WL
462354 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2013); Canales v. United States, 2007 WL 646189, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. Feb. 28, 2007) (“[T]his case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
because this court has no jurisdiction to consider this petition while he has a direct appeal
of his criminal conviction pending.”).
Case 3:26-cv-00271-B Document 3 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
III.
ANALYSIS
Here, Williams filed his notice of appeal in this Court on January 14, 2026.
At this time, his direct appeal is still pending before the Fifth Circuit. See United
States v. Williams, No. 26-10029 (5th Cir.). Williams’s § 2255 motion—filed in
this Court on January 21, 2026—was therefore prematurely filed. Thus, this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider Williams’s petition.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Edward Williams’s motion to vacate,
set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: February 6, 2026.
_______________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00271-B Document 3 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>