Case ID: f-appx_449/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. William JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-1920-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 7, 2011.
    
      Randall D. Unger, Law Offices of Randall D. Unger, Bayside, N.Y., for Appellant.
    Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., and Brent S. Wible, Assistant United States Attorneys (of counsel), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, N.Y., for Appellee.
    Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., who had originally been assigned to this panel, recused himself. The remaining two members of the panel decide the matter pursuant to Second Circuit Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

William Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), challenging the court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted in 1993 on a federal drug conspiracy charge and is currently imprisoned. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the case, the procedural posture, and the issues raised on appeal.

“We review district court rulings on Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).

“[Rjelief under Rule 60(b) is available with respect to a previous habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the habeas proceeding and not the underlying criminal conviction.” Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.2004). We agree with the district court that Jones’s claims plainly challenged his underlying conviction as opposed to his prior habeas proceeding. We note only that despite Jones’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct before and during his trial, he does not suggest that the government knowingly misled the district court considering his habeas petition.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.