UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL RALPH SAQUELLA, a/k/a Michael Paloma, a/k/a Michael
Blake,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00305-LMB-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2011 Decided: August 15, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, David B. Goodhand, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ralph Saquella appeals the district court’s
order denying his Motion to Amend Judgment. On appeal, Saquella
contends that the district court erred in failing to give him
notice and an opportunity to clarify his intent in filing the
motion before declining to recharacterize it as a 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. Finding no error, we affirm.
Federal courts may, but are not required to, “ignore
the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and
recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a
different legal category.” Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.
375, 381 (2003); see United States v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128,
132-33 (4th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Valadez-
Camarena, 402 F.3d 1259, 1261 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding no abuse
of discretion when district court elected not to recharacterize
pro se litigant’s pleading as § 2255 motion). While a district
court is required to give a litigant notice and an opportunity
to withdraw or amend the motion before recharacterizing a
pleading as a first § 2255 motion, Castro, 540 U.S. at 383, we
conclude that the district court did not err by declining to
recharacterize Saquella’s motion without providing notice or an
opportunity for Saquella to clarify the intent of his motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3