USA v. HUGULEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
MELDAMION ANTOINE HUGULEY, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	1:25CV1101
v. 	) 	1:18CR205-1
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, has submitted a document entitled “Writ of Mandamus
(Order of Compliance With Law)” (Docket Entry 115) in which he seeks to attack the
conviction he received in this Court. The document he filed is not a recognizable method for
achieving this goal. As the Court has informed Petitioner before, the proper avenue for such
an attack is ordinarily a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. For this reason, the Court will construe the submission as such a motion. However,
this Motion cannot be further processed because court records reveal that Petitioner
previously attacked the same conviction and sentence in a prior § 2255 motion [No.
1:19CV524]. Consequently, Petitioner must move in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit for an order authorizing this district court to consider the current Motion,
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2244. 	See AO 243 (MDNC 10/07),
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 116 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3

Instructions, ¶ (4) (copy enclosed). Because of this pleading failure, this particular Motion
should be filed and then dismissed.
The Court notes that Petitioner attempts to rely on New York State Rifle & Pistol
Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and associated cases to argue that his conviction
under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of
the United States Constitution. This is not his first attempt at making that argument. As the
Court stated previously, binding precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit holds that such challenges cannot succeed. See United States v. Canada, 123
F.4th 159 (4th Cir. 2024) (addressing facial challenges to 922(g)(1)) and United States v.
Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (4th Cir. 2024) (addressing as-applied challenges), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 145 S.Ct. 2756, (2025).
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that this action be filed and then dismissed
sua sponte for failure to obtain certification for this § 2255 application by filing a Motion for
Authorization in the court of appeals as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244 and Fourth
Circuit Local Rule 22(d).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk send Petitioner a copy of this
Recommendation, instruction forms for filing § 2255 motions in this Court and Motions for
Authorization in the court of appeals, and four copies of § 2255 motion forms (more copies
will be sent on request). Petitioner should keep the original and two copies of the § 2255
motion which can be submitted in this Court if Petitioner obtains approval from the Fourth
Circuit. There being no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional
-2-
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 116 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3

right affecting the conviction nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability
should not issue.
This, the 10th day of December, 2025.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
-3-
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 116 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3