Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Eddie David COX, Appellant.
    Nos. 05-1840, 05-4402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.
    Filed: Oct. 19, 2006.
    Bruce E. Clark, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Paul S. Becker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.
    Eddie David Cox, Pekin, IL, pro se.
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, Eddie David Cox, who is serving a life sentence imposed in 1990, challenges the district court’s order denying his “motion to re-sentence nunc pro tunc” (Appeal No. 05-1840), and the court’s orders denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion to reopen and his “Motion to Disqualify the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit” (Appeal No. 05-4402). Following careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Cox’s motions for sentencing relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255; cf. United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (it is well established that inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2244(b) for filing successive § 2255 actions by invoking some other procedure), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1135, 125 S.Ct. 2953, 162 L.Ed.2d 879 (2005); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (if Rule 60(b) motion is actually successive § 2255 motion, district court should dismiss or, in its discretion, transfer to court of appeals).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Cox’s pending motions are denied. 
      
      . The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.