Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-02036/USCOURTS-ca7-10-02036-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maurice Foster
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 6, 2010∗

 Decided August 11, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 10-2036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MAURICE FOSTER, also known as MARCUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 242

Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.

Order

Maurice Foster’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his 

collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. §2255 was unsuccessful. After the Sentencing 

Commission reduced the ranges for crack-cocaine offenses, and made that change 

retroactive, Foster asked for and received a reduction in his sentence. In January 2009 

the district judge cut the term from 360 to 324 months. Foster appealed, contending that 

the reduction should have been greater; we affirmed.

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-2036 Document: 23 Filed: 08/11/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10-2036 Page 2

In November 2009 Foster filed a motion, purportedly under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), 

contending that the conviction was invalid because the prosecutor did not reveal all 

exculpatory information. Rule 60 applies to civil proceedings, and the case in which 

Foster filed it was a criminal proceeding. The district judge did not remark on this fact 

but denied the motion because the judge thought that Foster was attempting to take 

issue with a decision already made by this court. Foster has appealed.

The district judge should have dismissed the motion, not denied it. It was in 

substance a new collateral attack, see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 525 (2005), which is 

permissible only if the prisoner has advance appellate permission to file a second or 

successive proceeding. A district judge does not have jurisdiction over an unauthorized 

successive collateral attack. See Nuñez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 1996). The 

decision of the district court is therefore vacated, and the matter is remanded with 

instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Foster’s appellate brief contends that the United States Attorney (or perhaps this 

court) has erred in the handling of sealed matters in the appellate record. This has 

nothing to do with the propriety of the district court’s judgment and at all events is 

irrelevant given our disposition.

Case: 10-2036 Document: 23 Filed: 08/11/2010 Pages: 2