UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6552
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KOFIE AKIEM JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00047-FPS-RWT-1; 1:13-cv-
00267-FPS-RWT)
Submitted: March 7, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gray R. Proctor, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant. William
Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Robert H. McWilliams,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia;
Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Sung-Hee Suh,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kofie Akiem Jones appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as “second or successive”
within the meaning of § 2255(h), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) motion for reconsideration. ∗ Jones argued that his § 2255
motion was not successive pursuant to Magwood v. Patterson, 561
U.S. 320 (2010), because his resentencing constituted a new
judgment intervening between his prior § 2255 motions and this
one. In dismissing his motion, the district court rejected the
argument but granted him a certificate of appealability.
We recently “join[ed] the chorus of our sister circuits in
finding that when a habeas petition is the first to challenge a
new judgment, it is not second or successive . . . regardless of
whether it challenges the sentence or the underlying
conviction.” In re Gray, No. 16-433, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL
775861, at *3 (4th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017). In light of our holding
in Gray, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for
further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the
∗
In the first order, the district court granted Jones a
certificate of appealability as to its dispositive procedural
ruling that his § 2255 motion was second or successive within
the meaning of § 2255(h). To the extent that it is required, we
grant Jones a certificate of appealability as to the district
court’s subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration.
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3