Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04201/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel L. Card
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

DANIEL L. CARD,

Movant.

No. 07-4201

(D.C. No. 07-CV-693-TC)

ORDER

Filed December 11, 2007

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Movant Daniel L. Card, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a

motion for remand. Card filed a motion captioned as a “Delayed 2255” motion to

vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In it, Card

seeks to assert the same claims we have now twice rejected. The district court

ruled the motion constituted an attempt to file a second or successive § 2255

motion without first obtaining authorization from this court to do so, as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) and § 2255 para. 8, and it transferred the matter to this

court. See Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997). Card

now moves this court for an order remanding the matter to the district court,

arguing that he does not need this court’s authorization to file his proposed

§ 2255 petition in the district court. We deny the motion.

Appellate Case: 07-4201 Document: 010186733 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

Card was convicted in 1997 for possession of an unauthorized firearm and

for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He filed a § 2255 motion in 1999,

which was denied. United States v. Card, 2000 WL 1827465, No. 00-4116

(10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2000) (unpublished denial of a certificate of appealability). In

2004, he sought, and was denied, authorization to file a second or successive

§ 2255. United States v. Card, No. 03-4281 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2004)

(unpublished). Card filed a Rule 60(b) motion in 2006, which the district court

denied. On appeal, this court ruled the Rule 60(b) was actually a successive

§ 2255 motion; vacated the district court’s order for lack of jurisdiction, and

denied Card authorization to file the successive motion. See United States v.

Card, 220 F. App’x 847, 849-51 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 2007). 

Card then filed his current motion, claiming to be relying on Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure 15(c) and 60(b). He is again raising the very same claims he

sought to present in his 2004 motion for authorization, and his 2006 Rule 60(b)

motion, namely that the firearm was obtained through an illegal search and that

the police officer responsible for this allegedly illegal search misrepresented the

search’s legality at trial. See Card, 220 F. App’x, at 851 (describing claims and

characterizing them as indistinguishable from those in his prior motion for

authorization).

In his motion for remand, Card argues that his motion should not be treated

as a second or successive § 2255 motion because he is only seeking to amend his

Appellate Case: 07-4201 Document: 010186733 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

original § 2255 motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). As

Card knows, however, a post-judgment motion in a habeas proceeding must be

treated as a second or successive habeas petition, and be authorized for filing by a

circuit court of appeals, if it asserts or reasserts a substantive claim to set aside

the movant’s conviction. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-31 (2005);

United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1147 (10th Cir. 2006). The relief sought

by the motion, not the title of the motion, determines whether the motion is a

successive petition. Nelson, 465 F.3d at 1149; United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d

1241, 1246 (10th Cir. 2002). Card cannot rely on Rule 15(c) because a Rule 15

motion to amend is not permissible after judgment is entered, see Nelson,

465 F.3d at 1148, and, here, judgment was entered on Card’s § 2255 petition in

2000. 

Card is clearly seeking to amend his § 2255 motion to seek relief from his

firearms convictions, and, thus, this motion is clearly a second or successive

§ 2255 motion. See id. at 1148-49 (ruling that Rule 15 motion to amend a

post-judgment § 2255 was a second or successive § 2255 requiring circuit-court

authorization). Card also seeks to base his claims on Rule 60(b). We have

previously ruled that Card’s Rule 60(b) motion, based on the same claims, was a

successive § 2255 motion. Card, 220 F. App’x at 851. That decision is the

binding law of the case. 

Appellate Case: 07-4201 Document: 010186733 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Page: 3 
-4-

In summary, the district court correctly treated Card’s motion as a second

or successive § 2255 motion. Card does not seek authorization to file his motion,

nor could such authorization be granted because he previously presented his

proposed claims in his prior motions. See Burton v. Stewart, 127 S. Ct. 793, 792

(2007) (explaining that a circuit court “may authorize the filing of the second or

successive application only if it presents a claim not previously raised [and]

satisfies one of the two grounds articulated in § 2244(b)(2)”). 

We warn Card that any further effort by him to assert or reassert any

substantive federal basis for relief from his 1997 conviction without satisfying the

standards and requirements set forth in § 2244(b) may lead to the imposition of

sanctions.

The motion for remand is DENIED, and the matter is TERMINATED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-4201 Document: 010186733 Date Filed: 12/11/2007 Page: 4