Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanh Huu Lam
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CR. S-97-054 WBS

Court of Appeals No. 05-10388

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

TANH HUU LAM,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

By order filed in the Court of Appeals on July 27,

2005, Appellate Commissioner Peter L Shaw has ordered this court

to issue an order either granting or denying a certificate of

appealablity in this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Because it is not clear to this court exactly what

issues defendant seeks to raise on appeal, or what order he seeks

to appeal from, it is difficult to identify “which specific issue

or issues,” if any, satisfy the showing required by section

2253(c)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). The court will assume

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 401 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that defendant seeks to appeal from this court’s order of May 18,

2005 denying reconsideration of its previous order of May 2,

2005. If so, for the reasons expressed in its May 2 order, this

court finds no issue that is debatable by jurists of reason,

could be resolved differently by a different court, or is

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See

Jennings v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002).

This court’s order of May 2, 2005 denied what was

captioned as a Motion to Vacate Guilty Plea, pursuant to Rule

11(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 60(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Whether considered

under those rules or under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, that motion lacked

merit. The grounds asserted in support of defendant’s motion

were the same as those which were raised, or at least could have

been raised, in his earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed

on October 22, 2002. The Court of Appeals affirmed this court’s

denial of that motion, and on January 21, 2005 denied defendant’s

request to file a second or successive motion.

The filing of second or successive motions under

section 2255 is prohibited unless the petitioner has obtained

certification to do so from the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. §

2244. United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Rule 60(b) may not be used to circumvent the prohibitions of

section 2244. See Thomas v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 918, 920-21 (9th

Cir. 1998). Defendant obtained no certification to file a

successive motion, and there was no colorable claim of mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered

evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 401 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

adverse party here. Cf. Rodwell v. Pepe, 324 F.3d 66, 60 (1st

Cir. 2003), cited by defendant. Defendant’s motion was therefore

barred by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

For those reasons, a certificate of appealability is

hereby DENIED. The Clerk of this court is directed to forward a

copy of this Order to the Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, for filing in its case No. 05-

10388.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2005

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 401 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3