Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02237/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Darryl Lee Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2237

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Darryl Lee Williams, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2006

Filed: March 20, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Williams appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b) motion challenging the district court’s 1993 denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. We deny a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismiss the appeal.

In 1990, this court affirmed Williams’s conviction and sentence on drug

charges. See United States v. Turpin, 920 F.2d 1377, 1380 (8th Cir. 1990), cert.

denied, 499 U.S. 953 (1991). In August 1993, Williams filed a section 2255 motion,

Appellate Case: 05-2237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022575
-2-

alleging that his sentence was improperly enhanced. The district court denied the

motion in November 1993, and this court dismissed the appeal, see Williams v. United

States, No. 94-1828 (8th Cir. June 8, 1994) (unpublished disposition). In January

2004, Williams filed the instant motion under Rule 60(b), arguing that the district

court erred in dismissing his habeas motion. The district court denied the motion, and

Williams appeals.

We find Williams’s motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion, as

he attempted to reargue the claims in the original motion by attacking the district

court’s November 1993 ruling on substantive rather than procedural grounds. Cf.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2647-48 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should not

be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous resolution

of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th

Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255

by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, the district court’s dismissal

was proper, see Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (if district

court determines Rule 60(b) motion is actually second habeas petition, court has

discretion to dismiss it for failure to obtain authorization, or transfer it to court of

appeals), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 953 (2003), and we deny a COA, see United States v.

Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (COA is required to appeal

denial of any motion that ultimately seeks habeas relief), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2953

(2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2006 Entry ID: 2022575