[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-14033

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAEES QAZI, 

a.k.a. Shan,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60298-BB-1

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 1 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14033

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In 2015 in his criminal case, Raees Qazi was convicted of 

terrorism-related offenses. In a separate civil proceeding, Qazi 

unsuccessfully pursued 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. Then, back in his 

criminal case in 2022, Qazi filed a motion for relief from the 

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). 

After review, we conclude the district court correctly denied Qazi’s 

Rule 60(b)(6) motion because Rule 60(b)(6) relief is not available in 

a criminal case. 

I. BACKGROUND

Although the resolution of this appeal is fairly 

straightforward, it is helpful first to summarize some of the 

procedural history of Qazi’s prior motions filed pursuant to § 2255 

and Rule 60(b)(6).

A. Conviction and Original § 2255 Motion

In 2015, Qazi pled guilty and was convicted of conspiring to 

provide material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2339A(a) (Count Two), attempting to provide material support 

to a foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2339B(a)(1) (Count Five), and conspiring to forcibly assault a 

federal employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 111(a)(1), (b)

(Count Six). The district court sentenced Qazi to 180 months on 

Count Two, 180 months on Count Five and 60 months on Count 

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 2 of 7
22-14033 Opinion of the Court 3

Six, all to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 420 months’ 

imprisonment. Qazi did not file a direct appeal.

In 2016, Qazi filed a pro se motion to vacate his sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Qazi’s § 2255 motion was docketed 

as a separate civil action, 16-CV-61177-BB, and all further pleadings 

relating to his § 2255 proceeding were also docketed in that civil 

action.1 

Qazi’s § 2255 motion acknowledged that he had not 

appealed his judgment of criminal conviction. The § 2255 motion 

raised several claims, including ineffective-assistance-of-trialcounsel claims. But Qazi’s § 2255 motion did not argue that his trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal. The district 

court denied Qazi’s initial § 2255 motion on the merits. Qazi did 

not appeal.

B. Second § 2255 Motion 

In May 2022, Qazi filed a pro se second § 2255 motion, 

arguing for the first time that his trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to file a direct appeal. Qazi’s § 2255 motion also argued he 

could prove his actual innocence to overcome his procedural 

default of this ineffective assistance claim. 

The district court dismissed Qazi’s second § 2255 motion for 

lack of jurisdiction because Qazi had not received permission from 

this Court to file a successive § 2255 motion. The district court 

1 The same district court judge in the Southern District of Florida presides over 

both Qazi’s criminal case and his § 2255 proceedings. 

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 3 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 22-14033

denied Qazi’s subsequent Rule 60(b)(6) motion that he filed as to 

this second § 2255 motion, reaffirming that Qazi’s second § 2255 

motion was unauthorized. Qazi appealed, but his appeal was later 

dismissed for want of prosecution.2 

C. Rule 60(b)(6) Motion Filed in Criminal Case

In October 2022, Qazi filed in his criminal case a motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the COVID19 pandemic. The district court denied the motion, and Qazi 

appealed.3 

A few weeks later, in November 2022, Qazi also filed in his 

criminal case the Rule 60(b)(6) motion that is the subject of this 

appeal.4 Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion sought an order “setting aside 

the judgement [sic] to deny his previously filed § 2255 motion,” 

without identifying which previously filed § 2255 motion. Qazi 

argued that extraordinary circumstances—his actual innocence 

and his trial counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal—warranted Rule 

60(b)(6) relief. Additionally, Qazi’s motion stated that: (1) Rule 

60(b)(6) was “the proper vehicle to set the court’s judgement [sic] 

aside”; (2) his claim was “cognizable only in a motion under Fed. 

R. Civ. P., Rule 60(b)(6)” and was not “actionable in a § 2255 post2 In July 2022, Qazi filed a third pro se § 2255 motion, raising an issue unrelated 

to the issues in this appeal. The district court dismissed the motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, and Qazi did not appeal. 

3 This Court subsequently dismissed Qazi’s appeal of the denial of his motion 

for compassionate release for want of prosecution. 

4 Qazi included only his criminal case number on his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. 

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 4 of 7
22-14033 Opinion of the Court 5

conviction proceeding”; and (3) “[t]his motion may not be 

recharacterized as a second or successive § 2255 motion.” 

The district court summarily denied Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) 

motion. This appeal followed. 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a party in a civil 

proceeding to seek relief or reopen a final judgment or order for 

reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or, as relevant 

here, for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(6). To obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the movant must 

show “that circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant 

relief.” Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation 

marks omitted). However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do 

not apply to criminal cases, and this Court has held that “Rule 60(b) 

simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal 

case.” United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003). 

The district court did not err in denying Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) 

motion. Qazi filed his Rule 60(b)(6) motion in his criminal case, 

where the district court is unable to grant such relief. See id. at 

1318.5 

5 Notably, while this appeal was pending, Qazi filed another Rule 60(b)(6) 

motion in his § 2255 proceeding. The district court denied the motion on the 

merits, explaining that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Qazi’s second § 2255 

motion because Qazi has never obtained this Court’s authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion raising a claim as to his trial counsel’s failure to file a 

direct appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 5 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 22-14033

Ordinarily, federal courts “are obligated to look beyond the 

label of a pro se inmate’s motion to determine if it is cognizable 

under a different statutory framework.” United States v. Stossel, 348 

F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, however, Qazi’s motion 

specified that he was proceeding under only Rule 60(b)(6), 

explicitly denied proceeding under § 2255, and forbade the district 

court from recharacterizing his Rule 60(b)(6) motion as “a second 

or successive § 2255 motion.” 

Moreover, on appeal, Qazi continues to refer to his motion 

as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion and does not argue that the district court 

should have construed his motion as anything else. Thus, Qazi has 

abandoned any argument that his Rule 60(b)(6) motion should have 

been construed as a § 2255 motion. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 

870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a pro se litigant abandons 

a claim by failing to raise it on appeal).

We reject the government’s argument that Qazi’s filing of 

the notice of appeal in his criminal case as to the denial of his 

compassionate release motion divested the district court of 

jurisdiction over his subsequent Rule 60(b)(6) motion. The filing 

of a notice of appeal “divests the district court of its control over 

those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Johnson v. 3M Co., 

55 F.4th 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). 

“The district court has authority to proceed forward with portions 

of the case not related to the claims on appeal.” Id. (quotation 

marks omitted). The claims in Qazi’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion were

unrelated to the issues raised in his appeal of the denial of 

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 6 of 7
22-14033 Opinion of the Court 7

compassionate release. Therefore, Qazi’s filing of the notice of 

appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to consider 

the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. See id.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-14033 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 10/30/2023 Page: 7 of 7