Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10007/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10007-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fairade Dorsey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10007

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FAIRADE DORSEY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-190

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Fairade Dorsey, federal prisoner # 42418-177, is 

serving a 120-month prison sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted 

felon. He appeals the district court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

As the district court explained, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do 

not govern criminal proceedings. See FED. R. CIV. P. 1; FED. R. CIV. P. 81. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10007 Document: 00513145890 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2015
No. 15-10007

2

Moreover, a Rule 60(b) motion does not empower a district court to correct or 

modify a criminal sentence because the court’s authority to do so “is limited to 

those specific circumstances enumerated by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b).” 

United States v. Bridges, 116 F.3d 1110, 1112 (5th Cir. 1997). To the extent 

that Dorsey intended his motion to attack the judgment denying postconviction 

relief, the claims he raises are unauthorized and successive. See Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 & nn.4, 5 (2005); In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 

556 (5th Cir. 2013). Dorsey’s motion was a “meaningless, unauthorized 

motion” that the district court was without jurisdiction to consider. United 

States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10007 Document: 00513145890 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2015