eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2000-09

United States v. Akas ( 2000 )


Menu:
 
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6616
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CYRIACUS AKAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CR-91-305, CA-00-985-JFM)
Submitted:   August 10, 2000             Decided:   September 15, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN* and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cyriacus Akas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
*
Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but
died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is
filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
PER CURIAM:
Cyriacus Akas appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion filed under
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2000).   Although
Akas’ § 2255 motion was a successive motion, the district court
denied it as untimely filed.   Because Akas did not obtain authori-
zation from this court to file the motion in the district court,
the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it.    See
Romandine v. United States,
    206 F.3d 731
    , 734 (7th Cir. 2000);
United States v. Key,
    205 F.3d 773
    , 774 (5th Cir. 2000); Hernandez
v. Campbell,
    204 F.3d 861
    , 866 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v.
Barrett,
    178 F.3d 34
    , 41 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied,
    120 S. Ct. 1208
     (2000); Lopez v. Douglas,
    141 F.3d 974
    , 975-76 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied,
    525 U.S. 1024
     (1998); Williams v. Hopkins,
    130 F.3d 333
    , 336 (8th Cir. 1997); Hill v. Hopper,
    112 F.3d 1088
    , 1089 (11th
Cir. 1997).   We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.    See
    28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244
    , 2255 (West Supp.
2000).   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2