Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10348/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick Odhiambo Opiyo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10348

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDERICK ODHIAMBO OPIYO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-181-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frederick O. Opiyo, federal prisoner # 39194-039, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d) motion 

challenging the revocation of his supervised release which resulted in a 

sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Rule 60 does not provide a 

jurisdictional basis for relief from a criminal judgment. See United States v. 

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Opiyo’s motion may 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10348 Document: 00513767747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 16-10348

2

be deemed as a challenge to the result of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, 

it is a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d

550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Opiyo has not obtained authorization to file such 

a motion, which we would deny because his claims do not satisfy the standard 

for a successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Although the district court denied Opiyo’s motion on the merits, the 

district court should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Early, 

27 F.3d at 142. We can, and therefore do, AFFIRM on the alternative basis

that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the unauthorized motion. See 

id.

 Case: 16-10348 Document: 00513767747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016