United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 18, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-31120
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LORENZO JEFFERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:94-CR-50069-2
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lorenzo Jefferson, federal prisoner # 08786-035, was found
guilty by a jury of three counts of a five-count indictment
charging him with offenses relating to the distribution of
cocaine base and marijuana as well as a firearms offense. His
conviction was affirmed on appeal. He obtained partial relief
via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with respect to his firearms
conviction. He was denied leave to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion, and the district court later denied a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 motion as an attempt to circumvent the requirements for a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-31120
-2-
successive § 2255 motion. Jefferson then filed a motion for writ
of mandamus, asserting that Count One of the indictment was
constructively amended by an erroneous jury instruction. This
motion was rejected by the district court and by this court as
again attempting to circumvent the filing requirements for a
successive § 2255 motion. Undaunted, Jefferson filed another
motion, this time pursuant to the All Writs Act, raising the same
constructive amendment argument. The district court denied this
latest motion. Jefferson appeals and seeks bail.
Jefferson’s motion is properly construed as a successive
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d
862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550,
551-52 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, Jefferson was required to obtain
leave of this court to file it, and the district court was
without jurisdiction to entertain the motion. See United States
v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Jefferson’s reliance
on the All Writs Act is misplaced, as the relief he seeks falls
within the scope of relief available under § 2255. See, e.g.,
Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996). Finally,
Jefferson’s contention that his argument is jurisdictional and
may be raised at any time is without merit. See United States v.
Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 286-87 (5th Cir. 2002).
As Jefferson’s brief fails to raise any issues of arguable
merit, we dismiss it as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Jefferson is
No. 05-31120
-3-
warned that any further repetitious or frivolous filings,
including those attempting to circumvent statutory restrictions
on filing second or successive § 2255 motions, may result in the
imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include
dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to
file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this
court’s jurisdiction. Jefferson’s motion for bail pending appeal
is denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR BAIL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING
ISSUED.