Case ID: f-appx_593/html/0605-01.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

Richard DeCARO, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-2237.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 18, 2015.
    Filed: Feb. 23, 2015.
    Richard DeCaro, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Edward Joseph Labarre Sausalito, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Thomas Dittmeier, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Richard DeCaro appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion challenging his conviction and sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the motion amounted to an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (authorization requirement); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion that challenges defect in integrity of habeas proceeding is not successive collateral attack, but motion that advances habeas claim is successive petition); United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (inmates cannot bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.