T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunder * the doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he cou rtgen eral l ydis favo rs the cit at i on of o rder s and judg m ents ; nev ertheles s, a n o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t m a yb e c ited u n d e r th e ter m s a n d c o n d iti o n s o f1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Au gu st10,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C I R C U I T UNI T E D S T A T E S OF AM E R I C A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. C A RL G . TERRELL,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3155 ( D . C . No . 9 7 - CR- 1 0 0 6 1 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM E N T * B efor e L U C E R O , M c C O N N E L L , and TY M KOVI C H , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the b ri e fs w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( f) ; 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a s e is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. The de f e n d a n ta p p e a l s th e di s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s di s m i s s a l ofFe d . R. Ci v . P. 6 0 (b ) m o tio n in w h ich h e so u g h t re c o n sid e ra tio n o fth e d e n ial o fh is2

pr evi ous l yfi l ed 28 U . S. C . § 2255 m ot i on. W e vac at e the or derforl ack of ju risd ictio n , co n stru e th e d e fe n d a n t’s n o tice o fa p p e a l, m o tio n to p ro c e e d in form a paupe r i s , and appe l l at e br i ef a s an i m pl i ed appl i cat i on for author i zat i on t o fi l e another§ 2255 m ot i on, and denyauthor i zat i on. T he defendant ’ s or i gi nal § 2255 m ot i on w as deni ed bythe di s tr i ct c o u rt . O n a p p e a l, th is c o u rt d e n ie d a c e rt ific a te o fa p p e a la b ility. See Un itedS ta tes v . Te rr e ll , 6 F e d . A p p x . 7 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u n p u b lis h e d ). Subse quent l y , t he defendantfi l ed the R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w hi ch i s the s ubj ect of thi s appea l , ar gui ng t hatt he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent , thatone of the sta tu tes h e w a s c o n v icte d o fv io latin g , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(3 ), is uncons t i tut i onal , t hatt he cr i m i nal j udgm enti s voi d, and thatr ece ntcas es fro m o th e r c irc u its sh o w th a t th e d istric t co u rt a n d th is c o u rt e rre d in th e ir deci s i ons i n t he ea r l i er§ 2255 pr ocee di ng. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the m ot i on forl ack ofj ur i s di ct i on. ( T he courts houl d have tr ans ferr ed the m a tte r t o th is c o u rt a s a s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . See C ol em an v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 0 6 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 )) . T he R ul e 60( b) m ot i on cons t i tut ed a s ucce s s i ve mot i on underthe A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t. See, e. g, Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es , 2 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (“ [ T ]o a llo w a p e tit io n e r to avoi d t he baragai ns ts ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i ons bys i m pl ys ty l i ng a pet i t i on undera di ffe r entname w oul d s ever el yer ode the pr ocedur al r es tr ai nt3

i m pos ed under28 U . S. C . §§ 2244( b) ( 3) and 2255. ”) ( ci t i ng t o Lopezv. D ouglas , 1 4 1 F .3 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 5 (1 0 th C ir.) (h o ld in g th a t a p o st-ju d g m e n t R u le 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on, fi l ed i n a habe as pr ocee di ng, s houl d be tr eat ed as “a se c o n d h a b e a s p e tit io n u n d e r th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A ct . . . . ”). T he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece ntdeci s i on i n G onz al ezv. C r os by , 1 2 5 S . C t. 2641, 2648, 2651 ( 2005) ( hol di ng thata R ul e 60( b) m ot i on fi l ed i n a § 2254 c a se m u st b e tre a ted a s a su c c e ss iv e h a b e a s p e tit io n ifit as se rts o r re a ss e rts a s ubs t ant i ve cl ai m t o s etas i de the pet i t i oner ’ s s t at e convi ct i on, as oppos ed to as serti n g a d efec t “i n the in tegrityo f th e fed era l hab ea s p roc ee d ing s”), d o e s n o t ch a n g e th is re su lt. E v e n ifw e c o u ld a ss u m e th a t G onz al ezapp l i es t o § 22 55 proceed i ng s, se e Un itedS ta tes v . Sc o tt , 414 F. 3d 815, 816 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( ext endi ng the r eas oni ng of G onz al ezt o § 2255 m ot i ons w hi ch i m pl i cat e s i m i l arconce rns o fsu c c e ss iv e n e ss ), th e d e fe n d a n t’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n d o e s n o t as se rt a defe ct“i n t he i nt egr i tyof the [pr evi ous ] fede r al habea s pr ocee di ng[] . ” R ather , the gr ounds pr es ent ed ar e al l eged e rr or s w hi ch occ urr ed as partof the defendant ’ s t r i al , and ar e r eas s ert i ons of gr ounds pr evi ous l yr ai s ed. A ccor di ngl y , t he di s tr i ctcourtl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overthe mot i on, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt o rd e r m u s t b e v a c a te d . See Lopezv. D ouglas , 141 F. 3d at975- 76. H ow ever , w e w i l l cons true the defendant ’ s not i ce ofappea l and4

a p p e lla te b ri e fa s a re q u e s t fo r t h e re q u ir e d a u th o ri z a tio n . Id. W e have t hor oughl yr evi ew ed the mat t erand conc l ude thatthe defe ndanthas fai l ed t o m ake the pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng r equi r ed by§ 2255 as a m e n d e d b yth e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t. H is cont ent i ons ar e notbas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence that , “i f pr oven and view ed in l i gh tof the evidence as a w ho l e, w ou l d b e suffici ent t o est abli sh bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence thatno r eas onabl e fa ctfi nderw oul d have fo u n d [ h i m ] g u i l tyo ft h e o ffe n s e ” o ro n a “ n e w ru l e o fc o n s t i tu t i o n a l l a w , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on col l at er al r evi ew bythe Supr eme C our t , that w as p rev iou slyu n av ail ab le. ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e g rou n d s raised w ere al l present ed p revi ou sl yei ther i n the defen dan t ’s dir ectapp eal or i n h i s fi rs t § 2255 m ot i on. T h e m o ti o n to p roc ee d in fo rm a p au p eris i s g ran ted, th e d istri ct co u rt order i s VAC ATED , an d th e im p lied a p p lica tio n fo r a u th o riz a tio n to file ano ther § 22 55 m oti on i s DENI E D . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt PerC ur i am