Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02346/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Dennis Echols
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2346

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

William Dennis Echols, also known as * District of Minnesota.

William D. Harris, also known as Larry *

W. Jones, also known as Larry D. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jones, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 18, 2007

Filed: July 23, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William D. Echols (Echols), who is serving a 235-month prison sentence

imposed in 1997 after a jury found him guilty of a firearm offense, see United States

v. Echols, 144 F.3d 584, 585 (8th Cir. 1998), unsuccessfully sought relief in the

district court1

 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and then under Federal

Appellate Case: 06-2346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332286
-2-

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), based on an alleged defect in his 1997 sentencing

proceeding. Echols appeals the district court’s adverse ruling, and we affirm. The

district court correctly treated Echols’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion filed without authorization. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d

1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (concluding inmates may not bypass the

authorization requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for successive § 2255 motions by

purporting to invoke some other procedure); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814

(8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (same).

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2007 Entry ID: 3332286