F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Au gust 30, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 04- 1198 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 92-00018 -CR- W DO -3 TOMMY CHRI S BARNETT, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(Augus t 30 , 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s.

PE R CU RIA M:

T om m y Ch ri s B ar

ne tt, af ed er al pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

his F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) m oti on r eque sti ng r el ie f fr om hisNothing in the r ecor d indicates that the district rule d on his pro se Rule 33 motion. 1 2 pr ev io us co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc e. No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we a f f i rm. Barn et t was co nv ic te d o n 2 2 No ve m be r 19 93 of d ru g t raff

ic ki ng ch arg es . O n 1 D ec em

be r 1993 , tho ugh sti ll re pr es en te d by c ouns el , Barn ett f

ile d apr o se Fed. R.C rim .P . 33 m otion for newtrial, arguing (1) that the evidence wa s insufficient to support his conviction s, ( 2) the district court gave err oneous j ury ins tr uc tio ns, and ( 3) his c ouns el r en de re d in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e. I n M ar ch199 4, 1 the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Barn ett t o 32 8 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. B ar

ne tt, thr oughhis tr ia l c ouns el , appe al ed his c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc e; but in Apr il 1995 , we aff irm ed Barnett’ s convictio ns and sentence. InMay 200 1, Barn ett f

ile d apr o se m oti on t o di sm iss the ind ic tm en t f or lack of j urisdictio n. T he district court denied thi s m otion
. While Barnett’ s appeal
w as pe ndi ng, he f

ile d inthi s C ourt a

“ Mot ionBe fo re the Appe al Co urt f or the L ow er Co urt [ to] E nte rt ai n hi s R ule 33 M oti on. ” W e de nie d B ar ne tt a ce rt if

ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

and d en ie d hi s m oti on a s m oot . In January

2004 , B arnett filed the prese nt Rule 60(b) m otion
. He argued that this Co urt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n to c onsi de r his dir ec t a ppe al w he n hi s m oti on3

fo r ne wtr ia l st ill w as pe ndi ng i n di str ic t c ourt. B ar ne tt al so arg ue d th e m er its of his ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce and i ne ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m s. Th e mag i s tra t e ju d g e r ec o m m en d edth atth e d i s tri ctco urtd en y Ba rn et t ’s Ru le 60( b) m oti on b ec au se , und er law -o f- the -c as e an d r es j udi catapr inc ipl es , the dis tr ic t c ourt w as not

auth or iz ed

to de te rm ine ( 1) that w e la ck ed j ur isd ic tio n to
re vie whis dir ec t a

ppe al and ( 2) that w e er

re d inde ny ing a s m oot

his m oti on t o th is Co u rtfo r t h e d i s tri ctco u rtt o d ec i d e h i s Ru l e 3 3 m o t i o n . Ov erBa rn et t ’s obj ec tio ns, the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the m ag istrate ’ s r ep ort and d en ie d th e Ru le 60( b) m oti on. On appeal, Bar

nett argues that we lacked j urisdictio n over his direct appeal whe n t he di st ric t co ur t fa il edto di sp os e o f hi s R ul e 3 3 m ot io n fo r ne w tri al . He also challenges the dis trict court’ s denial of his Rule 60(b) m otion : (1) the district
co urt e rr ed

by appl y ing the lawof

the c as e doc tr ine w he n r uli ng o n hi s R

ule 60( b)
m oti on, and ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to a ddr es s hi s c la im s of ineffec tive assistance of counsel and in sufficient evidence. Bar nett then argues the m er its of

his in ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e cl ai m s. R u l e 6 0 ( b ) i s ar

u l e o f c i v i l p r o c e du r e : i td o e s n o tp r o v i d e r e l i e f f r o m a j udgm ent in a crim inal case. See United State s v. Fa ir, 326 F.3d 131 7 (11th Cir. 2003 ); U nit ed

S tate s v. Mo savi, 138 F
. 3d 1 365, 136 6 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8)
. B ut i n hi sThat the district cour t denied B arne tt’s Rule 60(b) motion on differe nt gr ounds is of no conce rn: 2 we a re oblig ated to inquire into the exis tence of subject-matter jurisdiction at all times, see J ohansen v. Combusti on Eng ’g , Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1328 n.4 (11th Cir. 1999) , and we may aff irm the district court’s judgme nt f

or any rea son supported by the rec ord, see Gaston v. Be llingrath G arde ns & H ome, Inc., 167 F .3d 1361, 1363 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). 4 Rule 60(b) m otion , B arnett brought up m atters fr om his crim inal case: he asked the district court (1) to determ ine that this Cou rt lacked j urisdictio n over his direct ap pe al , and ( 2) to re ve rs e thi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n r ef usi ng t o c onsi de r his Ru le 33
m oti on. B ar

ne tt cannot

c ha lle nge the se m atte rs und er F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 60( b)
. T he di st ric t co ur t l ack edth e juri sd ic ti on ne ces sa ry to pro vi de Ru le 60 (b ) rel ie f: we af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Barn ett’ s R

ule 60( b) m oti on. S ee Mo savi, 138 2 F. 3d at 13 65. AFFIR MED.