Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-12-2006
USA v. Dawson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-5553
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Dawson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 754.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/754
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DPS-267 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5553
________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
LONNIE DAWSON
a/k/a
ABDUL QAHAAR SALIM,
LONNIE DAWSON,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. PA. Crim. No. 82-cr-00128-1)
District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 29, 2006
BEFORE: FUENTES, VAN ANTWERPEN and CHAGARES, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed July 12, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
In 1982, Lonnie Dawson was convicted in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on numerous drug-related charges. A cooperating
witness, Lawrence Simons, testified about his knowledge of Dawson’s drug organization
and the Government introduced, among other evidence, six separate recordings of
conversations that Dawson and his co-defendant had with Simons concerning their drug
business. This Court affirmed Dawson’s conviction. The District Court subsequently
granted Dawson’s motion to reduce sentence, lowering the term of imprisonment from
134 to 65 years. The details of Dawson’s numerous motions for post-conviction relief
need not be revisited here.
In 2004, this Court granted Dawson permission to file a second or successive §
2255 motion, raising claims based on newly discovered evidence in the form of two
recent affidavits from Simons in which he claimed that his 1982 trial testimony was false,
and that he had an undisclosed deal with the government to testify falsely in exchange for
sentencing leniency on a pending state court murder charge. After a two day evidentiary
hearing at which Simons and several of the principal participants from the 1982 trial
testified, the District Court denied the § 2255 motion. This Court denied a certificate of
appealability. United States v. Dawson, C.A. No. 05-2297 (3rd Cir. Aug. 5, 2005).
Dawson filed a motion seeking leave to file a post-judgment motion entitled
“motion for indication of willingness to entertain a post-judgment motion” (“leave
motion”) and a Rule 60(b) motion in September 2005. On November 21, 2005, the
2
District Court denied, in separate orders, the Rule 60(b) motion and Dawson’s leave
motion. Dawson filed a timely notice of appeal specifically appealing from the order
denying his “motion for indication of willingness to entertain a post-judgment motion.”
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.1 We will summarily affirm. The
District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the leave motion as moot after
considering and rendering judgment on Dawson’s Rule 60(b) motion on its merits.
Because the petition was properly dismissed and no substantial question is
presented by this appeal, the District Court’s judgment will be affirmed. See Third
Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
1
No certificate of appealability is necessary to appeal the denial of this motion,
which essentially seeks leave to file a post-judgment motion.
3