Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14762/USCOURTS-ca11-15-14762-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony L. Ford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14762

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00044-SCB-JSS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TONY L. FORD, 

a.k.a. BoBo, 

a.k.a. Bo, 

a.k.a. Big Head, 

 Defendant-Appellant,

DAVID GEE,

Sheriff of Hillsborough County,

 Movant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 14, 2017)

USCA11 Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Ford, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 

pro se motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Ford also 

appeals the district court’s denial of his two motions for reconsideration of the 

denial of Rule 60(d)(3) relief. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion 

and the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, 

Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(d)(3)); Arthur v. King, 500 

F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (motion for reconsideration). 

After a jury trial, Ford was convicted of multiple drug-trafficking offenses; 

he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ford’s convictions and sentences were 

affirmed on direct appeal. Ford later filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255, which was denied as untimely.

Ford then sought -- via a Rule 60(d)(3) motion -- to have his criminal 

judgment set aside based on alleged fraud on the court. Because Rule 60 applies 

only to civil cases, however, Ford may not use a Rule 60 motion to challenge his 

criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 

USCA11 Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 2 of 3
3

(11th Cir. 2003); see also Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996) 

(“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas 

petitions.”). The district court abused no discretion in denying Ford’s Rule 

60(b)(3) motion. 

In his motions for reconsideration, Ford reargued the merits of his Rule 

60(d)(3) motion, presented evidence that could have been raised before entry of 

judgment, and demonstrated no manifest error of law or fact. Given this situation, 

the district court denied properly Ford’s motions. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343 

(“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence 

or manifest errors of law or fact.” (alteration omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 3 of 3