Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03292/USCOURTS-ca10-07-03292-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Jay Cline
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

TIMOTHY JAY CLINE,

Movant.

No. 07-3292

(D.C. Nos. 04-CV-3400-SAC

& 00-CR-40024-SAC)

ORDER

Filed December 3, 2007

Before KELLY, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Timothy J. Cline, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion

for remand. Mr. Cline filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in the district court,

which the district court construed as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The district court transferred the matter here because Mr. Cline had not

obtained authorization from this court to file another § 2255 petition, as required

by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). See Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341

(10th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). In his motion for remand, Mr. Cline argues that he

should be permitted to file his 60(b) motion to prevent or correct a manifest

injustice. We deny the motion for remand.

Mr. Cline was convicted of multiple drug trafficking crimes and was

sentenced in November 2002 to 360 months of imprisonment. He filed a § 2255

Appellate Case: 07-3292 Document: 010178369 Date Filed: 12/03/2007 Page: 1 
-2-

motion seeking the retroactive application of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The district court

denied Mr. Cline’s motion in May 2005. Mr. Cline filed a second § 2255 motion,

this time seeking to modify his sentence, and the district court denied it in

October 2005. 

In May 2007, Mr. Cline filed a motion for relief from final judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The district court construed the motion as a

second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it to this court. Mr. Cline

filed an objection to the district court’s transfer order, which this court denied by

order entered July 19, 2007. Mr. Cline then filed a motion for authorization to

file a second or successive § 2255 motion, which this court denied on August 7,

2007. The next month, Mr. Cline filed the Rule 60(b) motion at issue in this

matter, which the district court transferred to this court on October 9. Mr. Cline

then filed the instant motion for remand.

Mr. Cline’s motion for remand presents the same argument that he

presented in his first § 2255 motion and in his previous motions before this court–

that his sentence is now void because of the Supreme Court’s decision in United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See, e.g., Case No. 07-3144, August 7,

2007 Order at 2 (“In his motion for leave Mr. Cline asserts that he was sentenced

pursuant to the mandatory sentencing guidelines, which were made

unconstitutional in Booker, and that therefore his sentence is void.”) Although

Appellate Case: 07-3292 Document: 010178369 Date Filed: 12/03/2007 Page: 2 
-3-

his motion for remand does not mention the Booker decision by name, he asserts

that when the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines were

unconstitutional, his sentence was deemed void and the district court’s decision to

continue to enforce this void judgment “undermines the integrity of the Court.” 

Mot. at 3. 

Mr. Cline’s 60(b) motion presents the same substantive challenge to his

sentence that he made in his first § 2255 motion and in subsequent motions;

accordingly, the district court correctly construed it as an attempt to file a second

or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it to this court. The motion for

remand is therefore DENIED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-3292 Document: 010178369 Date Filed: 12/03/2007 Page: 3