Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02030/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02030-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gary Patrick Callahan
Petitioner
USA
Respondent

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 

WO KAB 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Gary Patrick Callahan, 

Defendant/Movant. 

No. CV 13-2030-PHX-GMS (DKD) 

 CR 89-178-004-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Movant Gary Patrick Callahan, who is confined in the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Seagoville, Texas, filed a pro se “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).”1

 The 

Court will deny the motion and dismiss this case. 

I. Background

 On February 4, 1993, after a jury trial, Movant was convicted of conspiracy to 

possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. On May 24, 1993, the Court sentenced Movant to 

a 330-month term of imprisonment followed by five years on supervised release. On 

May 22, 1995, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Movant’s conviction and 

sentence. U.S. v. Akers, Nos. 93-10325, 93-10399, 56 F.3d 73 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 On March 12, 1997, Movant filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set 

 

1

 To facilitate the opening of this case, the Clerk of the Court labeled the Motion 

a “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person 

in Federal Custody” on the Court’s docket. 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 11
- 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 

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. On July 5, 2000, the Court 

denied the § 2255 Motion and judgment was entered. On July 17, 2000, Movant moved 

to alter or amend the § 2255 judgment and the Court granted the motion in part, to allow 

further briefing on one of the issues raised in the motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

On April 3, 2002, the Court denied the Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. On June 

24, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the § 2255 judgment in part, 

vacated in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing based on Movant’s ineffective 

assistance of counsel claims. U.S. v. Callahan, No. 02-15960, 102 Fed. Appx. 608 (9th 

Cir. 2004). 

 On February 14, 2005, Movant filed a Motion for Relief from the § 2255 

Judgment. On June 23, 2005, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in accordance with 

the Court of Appeals’ mandate. On February 2, 2006, the Court denied the § 2255 

motion and denied the Motion for Relief from Judgment. On August 6, 2008, the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmed the § 2255 judgment. U.S. v. Callahan, No. 06-

15321, 286 Fed. Appx. 521 (9th Cir. 2008). 

 On November 1, 2010, Movant filed a Motion for Downward Departure of 

Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). On December 17, 2010, the Court denied 

the Motion for Downward Departure of Sentence and, on October 27, 2011, the Court of 

Appeals affirmed that decision. U.S. v. Callahan, No. 10-10611, 455 Fed. Appx. 766 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

II. Motion for Relief from Judgment under Rule 60(b)

 On October 4, 2013, Movant filed the instant “Motion Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6).” 

In his Motion, Movant states that he raises “objections against the consequences of a 

prior sentencing judgment this Court rendered on May 24, 1993, and which it reinforced 

subsequent to an evidentiary hearing held on June 23, 2005. [The] sentencing proceeding 

was based upon plain error.” (CR 89-178-PHX-GMS, Doc. 981 at 1). Movant further 

states that he does not “challenge [his] conviction under any constitutional grounds, but 

rather the sentencing proceeding.” (Id.at 2) (emphasis in original). 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 11
- 3 - 

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 

 “A federal prisoner who is ‘claiming the right to be released upon the ground that 

the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States,’ 

28 U.S.C. ' 2255(a), may file a ' 2255 motion with the district court that imposed the 

sentence.” United States v. Washington, 653 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). “As a 

general rule, ' 2255 provides the exclusive procedural mechanism by which a federal 

prisoner may test the legality of detention.” Id. (quoting Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 

952, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, “[a] petitioner is generally limited to one motion under 

' 2255 and may not bring a ‘second or successive motion’ unless it meets the exacting 

standards of 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(h).” Id. 

 Section 2255(h) provides that a second or successive motion cannot be considered 

unless it has first been certified by the court of appeals to contain either “‘(1) newly 

discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would 

be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder 

would have found the movant guilty of the offense,’ or (2) ‘a new rule of constitutional 

law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was 

previously unavailable.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(h)). 

 Once a § 2255 motion has been denied, federal prisoners sometimes characterize a 

subsequent motion challenging their convictions or sentences as seeking relief from 

judgment under Rule 60(b)2

 in order to circumvent ' 2255(h). Id. at 1059-60. When a 

 

2

 Under Rule 60(b), a movant may seek relief from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have 

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 

previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing 

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or 

discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or 

applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies 

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Thus, clauses (1) through (5) provide specific reasons for 

granting relief, while clause (6) acts as a catch-all allowing the court to grant relief for 

“any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Hamilton v. 

Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 11
- 4 - 

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 

Rule 60(b) motion is actually a disguised second or successive ' 2255 motion, it must 

meet the criteria set forth in ' 2255(h). Id. at 1059-60 (citation omitted). 

 As explained in Washington, 

[T]he Supreme Court has not adopted a bright-line rule for 

distinguishing between a bona fide Rule 60(b) motion and a 

disguised second or successive ' 2255 motion, instead 

holding that a Rule 60(b) motion that attacks “some defect in 

the integrity of the federal habeas proceedings” is not a 

disguised ' 2255 motion but rather “has an unquestionably 

valid role to play in habeas cases.” 

653 F.3d at 1059 (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 534 (2005)). 

However, “a motion that does not challenge ‘the integrity of the proceedings, but in effect 

asks for a second chance to have the merits determined favorably,’ is raising a ‘claim’ 

that takes it outside the purview of Rule 60(b).” Id. at 1063 (citations omitted). 

 Movant’s Rule 60(b) motion does not challenge the integrity of his ' 2255 

proceedings. Rather, he seeks to challenge his sentence. Movant states that the U.S. 

Supreme Court’s decisions in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 385 (1970), Ivan v. City of New 

York, 407 U.S. 203 (1972), Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), Apprendi v. New 

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 253 (2004), United States 

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and, expressly, Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 

(2013), demonstrate that his sentencing proceeding was “in plain error.” 

 Because Movant does not point to anything that happened in his prior ' 2255 

proceeding that rendered its outcome suspect, he fails to allege or show any basis for 

relief in connection with that proceeding pursuant to Rule 60(b). Rather, Movant seeks to 

bring a new claim for relief, which is wholly independent of the claims adjudicated in his 

first ' 2255 proceeding. For that reason, his Rule 60(b) motion must be treated as a 

disguised ' 2255 motion. 

 As noted above, in order to bring a second ' 2255 motion, a federal prisoner must 

first obtain the certification of the relevant Court of Appeals, in this case, the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. ' 2255(h). Movant has not obtained certification by 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 11
- 5 - 

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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive ' 2255 motion. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny the instant motion for lack of jurisdiction. 

 IT IS ORDERED:

 (1) Movant=s Rule 60(b) motion (Doc. 981 in CR 89-178-004-PHX-GMS) is 

denied and the civil action opened in connection with this Motion (CV 13-2030-PHXGMS (DKD)) is dismissed without prejudice. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must provide Movant with a copy of the form 

recommended by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for filing an Application for Leave 

to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 or Motion Under 28 

U.S.C. ' 2255. 

 Dated this 1st day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 5 of 11
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE

PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 OR § 2255

Docket Number ____________________ (to be provided by court)

Petitioner's name ___________________________________

Prisoner registration number _______________________

Address _________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

Instructions - Read Carefully

1. This application, whether handwritten or typewritten, must be legible and

signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury. An original and five (5)

copies must be provided to the Clerk. The application must comply with

9th Circuit Rule 22-3, which is attached to this form.

2. All questions must be answered concisely and in relationship to the

questioned asked on this form.

3. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this application and any attachments

on respondent and must complete and file a proof of service with this

application. 

4. The petitioner shall attach to this application copies of the magistrate

judge's report and recommendation and the district court's opinion in any

prior federal habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255 or state

why such documents are unavailable to petitioner.

_______________

This form has not been officially adopted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but

prisoners are encouraged to use this form to comply with Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3 pending the

completion of official rule-making procedures. Questions should be directed to the Office of

Staff Attorneys, Motions/Pro Se Unit, (415) 556-9890

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 6 of 11
2

You Must Answer the Following Questions:

1. What conviction(s) are you challenging? 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

2. In what court(s) were you convicted of these crime(s)? 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

3. What was the date of each of your conviction(s) and what is the length of

each sentence? 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

For questions (4) through (9), provide information separately for each of your

previous section 2254 or 2255 proceedings. Use additional pages if necessary.

4. With respect to each conviction and sentence, have you ever filed a petition

or motion for habeas corpus relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or

§ 2255? Yes G No G

(a) In which federal district court did you file a petition or motion?

_______________________________________________________

(b) What was the docket number? ________________________________

(c) On what date did you file the petition/motion? ___________________

5. What grounds were raised in your previous habeas proceeding? (list all

grounds and issues previously raised in that petition/motion) 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

6. Did the district court hold an evidentiary hearing? Yes G No G

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 7 of 11
3

7. How did the district court rule on your petition/motion? 

a. District court dismissed petition/motion,

if yes, on what grounds? __________________________________

 

G District court denied petition/motion;

G District court granted relief;

if yes, on what claims and what was the relief? 

_______________________________________________________

(attach copies of all reports and orders issued by the district court) 

8. On what date did the district court decide your petition/motion?

_____________________________________________________________

9. Did you file an appeal from that disposition? Yes G No G

(a) What was the docket number of your appeal? ____________________

(b) How did the court of appeals decide your appeal? ________________

10. State concisely each and every ground or issue you wish to raise in your

current petition or motion for habeas relief. Summarize briefly the facts

supporting each ground or issue. 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

11. For each ground raised, was it raised in the state courts? If so, what did the

state courts rule and when? 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 8 of 11
revised 2/02 4

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

12. For each ground/issue raised, was this claim raised in any prior federal

petition/motion? (list each ground separately) 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

13. For each ground/issue raised, does this claim rely on a new rule of

constitutional law? (list each ground separately and give case name and

citation for each new rule of law) 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

14. For each ground/issue raised, does this claim rely on newly discovered

evidence? What is the evidence? Why has this newly discovered evidence

not been previously available to you? (list each ground separately) 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

15. For each ground/issue raised, does the newly discovered evidence establish

your innocence? How? 

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 9 of 11
revised 2/02 5

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

16. For each ground/issue raised, does the newly discovered evidence establish a

federal constitutional error? Which provision of the Constitution was

violated and how? 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

17. Provide any other basis for your motion not previously stated. 

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Signature: _________________________ Date: _______________

Proof of Service on Respondent MUST be Attached.

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 10 of 11
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

95 Seventh Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 22-3

(a) Applications. 

Any petitioner seeking leave to file a second or successive 2254 petition or 2255 motion in the

district court must file an application in the Court of Appeals demonstrating entitlement to such

leave under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 or 2255. An original and five copies of the application must be filed

with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. No filing fee is required. If a second or successive petition

or motion, or an application for leave to file such a petition or motion, is mistakenly submitted to

the district court, the district court shall refer it to the court of appeals.

The application must: 

(1) include a copy of the second or successive 2254 petition or 2255 motion which the

applicant seeks to file in the district court; and

(2) state as to each claim presented whether it previously has been raised in any state or

federal court and, if so, the name of the court and the date of the order disposing of such

claim(s); and

(3) state how the requirements of sections 2244(b) or 2255 have been satisfied.

(b) Excerpts of Record. 

If reasonably available to the petitioner, the application must include copies of all relevant state

court orders and decisions and all dispositive district court orders in prior federal proceedings. If

excerpts of record filed by petitioner are incomplete, respondent may file a supplemental excerpt

of record. 

(c) Service.

The petitioner must serve a copy of the application and all attachments on the respondent, and must

attach a certificate of service to the application filed with the court.

(d) Response. 

In noncapital cases, no response is required unless ordered by the court. In capital cases where an

execution date is scheduled and no stay is in place, respondent shall respond to the application and

file supplemental excerpts as soon as practicable. Otherwise, in capital cases, respondent shall

respond and file supplemental excerpts within ten days of the date the application is served. 

(e) Decision.

The application will be determined by a three-judge panel. In capital cases where an execution date

is scheduled and no stay is in place, the court will grant or deny the application, and state its reasons

therefore, as soon as practicable. 

(f) Stays of Execution. 

If an execution date is scheduled and no stay is in place, any judge may, if necessary, enter a stay

of execution, see Circuit Rule 22-2(e), but the question will be presented to the panel as soon as

practicable. If the court grants leave to file a second or successive application, the court shall stay

petitioner's execution pending disposition of the second or successive petition by the district court.

Case 2:13-cv-02030-GMS--DKD Document 3 Filed 11/01/13 Page 11 of 11