P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51170 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. N O R B E R T O B A R R E R A , a l so k n ow n a s B et o, a l so k n ow n a s N orbert o B arrera V illa r e a l , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 96- C R

- 22- 1 B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * N orb erto B a rrera , fed era lpr i son er #04 3 7 8 -07 9 , ple a d e dgu i l ty to c o n s p ir a c yto d i s tr ib u te m a r iju a n a a n da tt e m p tin gto d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a in vi o l at i o n o f 21 U . S. C. § § 84 1( a) ( 1) a nd 8 46 , a nd h e w as s e nt e nc e d t o 3 60 m o nt hs of i m pri sonm en t . B arrera app eal s t h e di str ict court ’ s den i alof hi s m ot i on f

or rel i ef f rom j u dg m en tun der F ED . R. C IV . P. 6 0 (b ) ( 1 ) , a n d h i s m o t i o n t o a m e nd United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 51170

2 j u dg m en tun der F ED . R. C IV . P. 59( e ) , w hi c h w e r e f i l e d al m o s tone ye ara f t e rt he di sm i ssalof

hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on t o vacate hi s s en t en ce. W e pr evi ous l y hel d t hatB ar r er a’ s appealof t he di sm i ss alo f h i s § 2255 m oti on w a s u n ti m ely a n ddism i sse dthe a p p e a lf or lack of j u ri sd i cti on . In appeal i ng t he deni alof hi s pos t - j udgm entm ot i ons , B ar r er a ar gues t hat he w as pre vent ed f

r om t i m el y appe al i ng t he di sm i ss alof hi s § 2 255 m ot i on by ex trao rd i n a ryci rcu m stan ces, an dh e es sen ti a l l y se ek s to reins tate a p p ell a te j ur i s di c t i o n o ve rt he o r i gi nalde ni alo f hi s § 2 25 5 m o t i o n. W e revi e w th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof a R u l e 60(b) m ot i on f or abu se of di s c r e t i o n. D u n n v. Co ck re ll , 3 0 2 F. 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 3 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2002) . U n d e rth is st an da rd, “ [i] ti s not en ou gh th at t h e gran t i n g of rel i ef m i gh tha ve been perm i ssibl e, or even w arran t ed-- den ia l m u stha ve been so u n w arran t edas to con sti tu te a n a b u se o f d i scre ti on . ” S even E l ves, I n c. v. Eskena zi , 635 F. 2d 396, 4 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). Atim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l in a c iv il c a s e is “m a n d a to r ya n dju r is d ic tio n a l.” B o w le s v . R u ss ell , 5 5 1 U . S . 2 0 5 , 2 1 3 (20 0 7 ). A R u l e 60 (b) m oti on i s n ot a s ubs t i t ut e fo ra t i m e l y ap pe aland c anno tbe use d s i m pl y t o vac at e aj udg m e nt a n dth e n re - e n t e r i t to a llo w a tim e lya p p e a l. D unn , 3 02 F. 3da t4 93 ( “As t he sol e pu rpose of [ t h e] 60(b) m ot i on i s t o achi eve an ext en si on of t h e t i m e i n w h i ch to f i l e a n oti ce of ap p ea l , i t m u st fa i l . ”) . M ore ov er, a l th ou gh B a rrera see k s to avai lhi m se l f

of s om e eq u i tab l e exc ept i on s o t hathi s unti m el y appe alm ay be co n sid e re d , th e re a r e n o “eq u ita b le e x ce p tion s to j u risd iction a l req u ire m e n t[]” o f filin ga tim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l. B ow les , 551 U . S. at213. B eca u se B arrera’ s R u l e 59(e) m ot i on w as f i l ed i n excess of

10 da ys af

t er t h e N ovem ber 2, 200 7 en t ry of j u dg m en t di sm i ssi n g h i s § 225 5 m ot i on an d rai sed t h e sam e groun ds f

or r el i ef as hi s R u l e 60(b) m ot i on , w e const rue h i s R u l e 59(e) m o t i o n as a s e c o nd, o rs uc c e s s ive , Rul e 6 0(b) m o t i o n. Se eB e ns o n v. S t . Jo s e ph R egi on al Heal t h Care , ___ F . 3 d

___, N o. 0 7 -20 7 2 6 , 20 0 9 W L 19 8 5 5 0 8 at * 3 ( 5 thN o. 08- 51170

3 C ir . J u ly1 0 , 2 0 0 9 ); Har c o n B argeCo . v. D & G Boa tRen t als , I nc . , 784 F. 2d 665, 6 6 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) (e n b a n c ). A c c o r d in g ly , w e w ill n o t r e v ie w it . Will is v . C ity of Ft. W o rth , 41 F. 3d 661, N o. 94- 10377, 1994 W L 6845 64 at*1 (c i t i ng Ch arles L . M. v. Nort h eastI

n d ep. S ch. D i st ., 8 8 4 F .2d 8 6 9 , 8 7 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 )). T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.