FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT APRI L26, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1405 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N os. 97- 0160 2- CV -T -2 6- E A J,

94-001 97-CR-T -2 EUGENE POST, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( Apr il 26, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN Aand C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

E uge ne P ost , pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r de ny ing his pr o se F ed . R. Ci v. P . 60( b) (3 ) m oti on a s an un au tho ri ze d su cc es siv e m oti on t o va cate und er

28 U . S. C. § 22 55. F oll ow ing aj ur y tr ia l, P ost

w as c onvi ct ed

of conspiracy

to poss ess with intent to di stribute m arij uana, in violation o f 21 U. S. C. § 84 6, and s en te nc ed

to tw en ty

y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t. P ost

ini tia lly appe al ed his convictio n but th en volun tarily dism issed his direct appeal w ith prejudice. Instead of proceeding on direct appeal, P ost filed a § 2255 m otion alleging that hi s trial attor ne y s w er e ine ff

ec tiv e. O n June 29, 200 0, the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi s § 2 255 m oti on o n th e m er its . In June 200 4, Post filed a Rule 60(b)(3) m otion seeking to vacate the district co u rt ’s d en i al o f h i s o ri g i n al § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n . Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt co n s t ru edPo s t ’s Ru le 60 (b )(3 ) m ot io n a s an ot he r § 2 25 5 m ot io n a ndde ni editas s uc ces si ve . Ther eafte r, we granted a ce rtificate of appealability on the following is sue:

“ Whether the district court err oneous ly found that app ellant’ s Fed.R .Civ. P. 60( b) (3 ) m oti on w as an un au tho ri ze d su cc es siv e m oti on t o va cate , se t a sid e, or correc t sentence, 28 U. S. C. § 225 5? ” W e re vie wde nov o th e que sti on o f w he the r a dis tr ic t c ourt ha s j ur isd ic tio n ove r a pr iso ne r’ s § 2 255 cl ai m s. F er nande z v. U nit ed

S ta te s, 941 F . 2d 1 488, 149 1 (1 1thCi r. 199 1) . W e re vie wthe de nia l of aRu le 60( b) m oti on f

or an a buse ofIn Gonzalez, t h i s C o u rt consolidated the f ollowing thre e ca ses for r ehea ringen banc : 1 M o b l ey v. Hea d, No. 02-14224, L azo v. United States, No. 02-12483, and G onzalez v. S ec’ y for Dep’ t of Corr., No. 02- 12054. See Gonzalez v. Sec’y for De p’t of Corr., 326 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 2003) (e n banc) (p ercuriam). These three case s were resolved by Gonzalez v. Sec’y

for De p’t of Cor r. , 3 66 F .3 d 125 3 (11 th Cir . 200 4) (e n banc ). Th e Sup re me Cou rt ha s gra nte d c e rt ior ari on ly

in the ca se of Gonzalez. See Gonzalez v. Sec’ y for De p’t of Corr . , 1 25 S. Ct . 961 (2005) ( g ranting c e rt ior ari a s to Go nza le z); Mo ble y v. Sc ho fi e ld, 12 5 S. Ct. 96 5 ( 20 05 ) ( de nyingc e rt io rar i a s to Mobley ). (L azo did not seek ce rtiorar i.) T h e i s s u e i n G o n z al ez i s wh et h er a Ru l e 6 0 m o t i o ni s th e ap p ro p ri at e v eh i cl e t o ch al l en ge a habe as judg ment when ther e has bee n “an inter veningchang e in the law a pplicable to the or igina l [ h ab ea s ] p et i t i o n . ” 3 6 6 F. 3 d at1 2 6 3 . Be cau s e P o s t ’s ca s e d o es n o ti n v o l v e ani n t erv en i n g ch an ge in t he a pp lic a ble law, it i s n ot a ff

e c te d b y the Sup re me Court ’s lim ite d gra nt o f c e rt ior ari . 3 discretion. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 , 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curi am). C onve rs el y , “ w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s le ga l c onc lus ion s ina§ 22 55 pr oc ee din g de nov o and the und er ly ing f ac ts f or c le ar e rr or . ” I d.

“ Most of the provis ions o f Rule 60(b), which vest courts with broad dis cr et ionto re ope n j udgm en ts o n aw ide vari ety of gr ound s, are inc onsi ste nt and ir re co nc ila ble w iththe A E D PA ’ s purp ose , w hic h is to gr eatly r es tr ic t the pow er

of fe de ra l c ourts t o aw ar d r el ie f to s ta te pr iso ne rs w ho f ile se co nd o r suc ce ssi ve habe as c or

pus ap pli catio ns . . . . ” G onz al ez v. S ec ’ y f or D ep ’ t of Co rr . , 366 F . 3d 1253 , 127 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( enbanc ), c er t. gr an te d, 125 S . Ct . 961 ( 2005 ). T hus, 1 Ru le 60( b) m oti ons that are f ile d to r eo pe n af

ina l ha be as j udgm en t are ge ne ra lly

“ tr eate d a s an a

ppl ic at ionto fi le ase co nd o r suc ce ssi ve [ habe as ] pe tit ion ” an d dis m iss ed pur suant t o § 2 244( b) . I d. a t 12 77.4

Ru le 60( b) , how ev er , sti ll ha s “ som e lim ite d r ole to play in habe as c as es ” to th e ex te nt th atit s ap pl ic at io n i s n ot in co ns is te nt wit h t he AEDPA. Id. at 1 27 2. Rule 60(b) m otion s are not subjec t to § 22 44’s prohibition on successive habeas pe tit ion s if

( 1) the m oti on i s ba se d on“ cl er ic al e rr or s inthe j udgm en t i tse lf ” or (2) “ there w as fra

ud up on the federal c ourt which led to the denial of the habeas pe tit ion . ” I d. a t 12 78. Po st c ont en ds tha t hi s R

ule 60 m oti on f

its int o th e se co nd e xc ep tio n. T his Co urt m ad e cl ear in G onz al ez that: “ [t ] he f ra ud e xc ep tio n . . . appl ie s whe re the fr au d w as pe rp etrate d onthe f ed er al [ habe as ] c ourt and r es ult ed in the de nia l of federa l habeas relief

, not w here the f

raud wa s perpetrated on a [ trial] court.” Id. at 1284 . Y et , P ost ’ s a lle ga tio ns d o no t st at e a cl ai m that f ra ud w as pe rp etrate d onthe habeas court. Instead, he r efram es the ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claim s that he m ad e in h is p ri or

§ 22 55 m oti on a s f

ra ud c la im s purs uant t o R

ule 60( b) (3 ). O ur de ci sio n inG onz al ez m ak es c le ar that su chr ep ac ka gin g w ill not suc ce ed in evading th e re quirem ents of the AE DP A. A ccordingly , w e af firm the district co urt’ s or de r de ny ing P ost ’ s R ule 60 m oti on a s an un au tho ri ze d su cc es siv e § 22 55 m oti on. AFFIRMED.