- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In re: Potter
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________ In re: KELLY RAY POTTER, JR., Movant.
No. 26-7003
(D.C. No. 6:17-CR-00050-RAW-1) (E.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________ Before HARTZ, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Kelly Potter, proceeding pro se, moves for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. Mr. Potter acknowledges that he has not filed a first § 2255 motion but explains that he seeks authorization based on his understanding that a first § 2255 motion would be untimely. However, the district court must determine timeliness in the first instance. Because Mr. Potter's § 2255 motion would be his first such motion, it is not subject to the authorization requirements for second or successive motions in § 2255(h). Consequently, he does not need this court's authorization to file his proposed § 2255 motion in the district court. We deny Mr. Potter's motion for authorization as
FILED
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
February 2, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 26-7003 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2026 Page: 1
1
2
unnecessary. In doing so, we express no opinion on the timeliness of his proposed § 2255 motion or the merits of his claims.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 26-7003 Document: 5-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2026 Page: 2
Alert