Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02237/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02237-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard DeCaro
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2237

___________________________

Richard DeCaro

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________

 Submitted: February 18, 2015

Filed: February 23, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Richard DeCaro appeals the district court’s denial of his 1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion challenging his conviction and

The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 14-2237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2015 Entry ID: 4246850 
sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the motion amounted to an

unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)

(authorization requirement); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (Rule

60(b) motion that challenges defect in integrity of habeas proceeding is not

successive collateral attack, but motion that advances habeas claim is successive

petition); United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(inmates cannot bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke

some other procedure). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2015 Entry ID: 4246850