UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Juan Olaya was part of a crew of robbers who broke into the homes of families 

of Asian descent, rounded up the occupants, including children and the elderly, at 

gunpoint, bound them with duct tape, and then searched the homes for jewelry and 

cash, taking what they found. A jury convicted him on racketeering and firearm 

charges, including four counts of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a 

crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (ECF No. 436.) The § 924(c) 

convictions mandated seven years’ imprisonment on each count to be served 

consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). These 28 years combined with 12 years 

on the racketeering counts resulted in a total sentence of 40 years. (ECF No. 511.) 

The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. United States v. Olaya, No. 21-1498, 

2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 484 (6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2023), available at (ECF No. 579). Olaya 

then filed his first § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence (ECF No. 591), which this 

Court denied. (ECF No. 600). No appeal was taken. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff/Respondent, 

 

v. 

 

JUAN OLAYA, 

 Defendant/Petitioner. 

Case No. 15-20200 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

ORDER TRANSFERRING DEFENDANT’S SUCCESSIVE MOTION 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [603] TO THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF 

APPEALS 

Case 2:15-cr-20200-LJM-DRG ECF No. 604, PageID.10702 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of 4
2 

Olaya has now filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 603.) He again challenges his sentence for the four 

§ 924(c) convictions. (Id.) 

Prior to Olaya’s sentencing, the First Step Act of 2018 went into effect. Section 

403(a) of the Act eliminated the enhanced 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for 

a second or subsequent § 924(c) conviction where that subsequent conviction came 

from the same indictment as the first § 924(c) conviction. See United States v. 

Gatewood, 807 F. App’x 459, 462 (6th Cir. 2020). But the First Step Act did not 

eliminate all “stacking.” In other words, it did not eliminate consecutive seven-year 

sentences for multiple convictions of brandishing a firearm under § 924(c). See United 

States v. Davis, No. 20-3390, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34781, at *5 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 

2020) (“[E]limination of ‘stacking’ for first-time offenders concerned only the 

recidivist penalty enhancement. There is nothing in the Act that precludes multiple 

§ 924(c) convictions arising from the same indictment.”). Olaya mistakenly believes 

that it did and that he should have only been sentenced to a total of seven years for 

all of the § 924(c) convictions. (ECF No. 603.) Thus, Olaya asks this Court to vacate 

three of his § 924(c) convictions and to “resentence him.” (Id. at PageID.10699.) 

“A district court’s authority to resentence a defendant or modify a sentence is 

limited to that set forth in § 2255, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), 28 U.S.C. § 2106, and Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure 35 and 36.” United States v. Wardle, No. 23-5562, 2024 

U.S. App. LEXIS 13692, at *2 (6th Cir. June 5, 2024) (citations omitted). It does not 

include a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Indeed, “Rule 60(b) 

Case 2:15-cr-20200-LJM-DRG ECF No. 604, PageID.10703 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 4
3 

does not provide relief from judgment in criminal proceedings.” United States v. 

Gibson, 424 F. App’x 461, 464 (6th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Diaz, 79 F. 

App’x 151, 152 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 60(b) is not applicable to criminal proceedings.”). 

Thus, although styled as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b), Olaya is challenging the legality of his sentence based on his mistaken 

understanding of how the First Step Act modified the “stacking” of consecutive 

sentences under § 924(c). Such a claim necessarily falls within the scope of § 2255(a). 

See United States v. Peterman, 249 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2001) (noting that § 2255 

“is the primary avenue for relief for federal prisoners” challenging their convictions 

and sentences). And the Sixth Circuit has recently reiterated what this Court must 

do with Olaya’s motion: 

“If, in substance, a claim falls within the scope of § 2255(a), it should be 

treated as such regardless of any ‘inventive captioning’ by the prisoner.” 

Pilla v. United States, 668 F.3d 368, 372 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Melton 

v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857 (7th Cir. 2004)). And when a postjudgment motion sets forth a “claim,” either by adding a new ground for 

relief or by attacking the district court’s prior resolution of a claim on 

the merits, it should be considered a § 2255 motion. See In re Nailor, 487 

F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2007); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–

32 (2005). Because [defendant’s] defective-indictment motion challenged 

the validity of his criminal convictions, the district court should have 

construed it as a second or successive § 2255 motion and transferred it 

to this court, rather than deny it. See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th 

Cir. 1997) (per curiam). 

United States v. Grady, No. 23-1260, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31741, at *3–4 (6th Cir. 

Nov. 29, 2023). 

 For these same reasons, the Court will treat Olaya’s Rule 60(b) motion 

challenging the length of his sentence, i.e., his receipt of seven-year consecutive 

Case 2:15-cr-20200-LJM-DRG ECF No. 604, PageID.10704 Filed 08/05/24 Page 3 of 4
4 

sentences for all four § 924(c) counts as opposed to just one seven-year sentence, as a 

second or successive § 2255 motion—and, as a result, will transfer it to the Sixth 

Circuit. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall TRANSFER 

Defendant Juan Olaya’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6) (ECF No. 603) to the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 5, 2024 

 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20200-LJM-DRG ECF No. 604, PageID.10705 Filed 08/05/24 Page 4 of 4