Kramer v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction defendant’s habeas petition challenging his continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) conviction, where said petition represented defendant’s second habeas petition that was barred under 28 USC section 2255. Record showed that defendant had previously filed 1997 habeas petition that resulted in vacatur of defendant’s drug conspiracy conviction, but left undisturbed defendant’s CCE conviction. Moreover, although Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Richardson, 526 US 813, invalidated same jury instruction that was given in defendant’s case, Dist. Ct. could properly find that instant petition was impermissible successive petition, as contemplated under Suggs, 705 F.3d 279, where defendant's CCE conviction went undisturbed in his prior habeas petition.