Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cr-00054-0/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

The court considers the United States’ motion, although 1

not filed within the time limits imposed by this court’s Order of

January 24, 2005, because of the confusion created by defendant

proceeding in both the Court of Appeals and in this court at the

same time, and because defendant has not been prejudiced by the

government’s delay in filing its motion.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CR. S-97-054 WBS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

TANH HUU LAM,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Defendant has filed what is 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. The United States moves to dismiss the motion.1

The grounds asserted in support of defendant’s motion

are 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

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 395 Filed 05/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

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). There is no colorable claim of mistake,

inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered

evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an

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

Cir. 2003), cited by defendant. The instant motion is therefore

barred by the provisions of section 2244.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ motion

to dismiss defendant’s motion to vacate guilty plea be, and the

same hereby is, GRANTED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment be, and the same hereby is, DENIED;

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion to

vacate guilty plea be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. 

DATED: May 2, 2005

Case 2:97-cr-00054-WBS-KJN Document 395 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2