T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N os . 06- 4153 and 06- 4154 v. ( D . of U t ah) DEA N R AM I REZ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 3 - CR- 6 9 - TC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D ean Ram i r ez, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the di s tr i ct court ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on forr el i ef f r om a cr i m i nal j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re . B e c a u se R u le 6 0 (b ) is in a p p lica b le to c rim in a l ca se s, w e A F F IR M th e d e c isio n o f th e d istric t co u rt.See Fed. R . C i v. P. 60, “R el i ef f r om J udgm entorO r der . ” A R ul e 60( b) 1 m ot i on s eeks r el i ef f

r om a fi nal j udgm enton the bas i s of m i s t ake, i nadvert ence , excus abl e negl ect , new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , fr aud, or“anyotherr eas on ju s tif y in g re lie f

f ro m th e o p e ra tio n o f

a ju d g m e n t.” -2- I . Backg r ound O n M ay1 and M ay15 of 2003, R ami r ez w as i ndi ct ed bya fe der al gr and juryfo r his inv o lvem en t i n tw o d rug tr affick ing ca ses. T h e c ase s w ere cons ol i dat ed fortr i al and, aft eran 8- daytr i al i n M ar ch 2004, R ami r ez w as convi ct ed on fourcount s : cons pi r acyi nvol vi ng 500 gr ams orm or e of m ethamphet ami ne; pos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya r es tr i ct ed per s on; unl aw ful tr ans por tof fi r earm s ; and us e of a comm uni cat i on fac i l i tyi n a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e. R ami r ez w as s ent ence d t o 30 y ear s of i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e s ubs equent l yappea l ed hi s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e to th is C o u rt , Uni t ed Stat es v. R am i r ez , N os . 05- 4099 and 05- 4103. O r al ar gum entw as hel d on M ar ch 7, 2006 buta fi nal deci s i on has noty etbeen re n d e re d . O n M ar ch 10, 2006, R ami r ez f i l ed a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on underthe fe der al c iv il ru les in d istric t co u rt se e k in g re lief f ro m h is c rim in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e b a sis o f a ll eg ed sen tenc ing erro rs. B efo re ru li n g o n the m o ti o n , the d istri ct co u rt 1 as ked R ami r ez w hetherhe w oul d r atherhave hi s cl ai m cons trued as a pet i t i on for a w ri t o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ra th e r t h a n a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n .-3-

R a m ire z re p lied th a t h e w o u ld n o t, an d su b se q u e n tlyfiled a m e m o ra n d u m in s u p p o rt o f

h is R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . O n M ay3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the d istri ct co u rtissue d an o rde r de n y ing R am ir ez ’s m o tio n o n th e b a s is th a t R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s a re lim ite d in s c o p e to c iv il a c tio n s . T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded R ul e 60( b) “i s i nappl i cabl e t o cr i m i nal cas es and, as a pr ocedur al m att er , does notpr ovi de M r . R ami r ez a n avenue t o pur s ue the r el i ef he now r eques t s . ” D i s tr i ctC our tO r derat1. T hus , the courtfound i tl acke d ju ri s d ic tio n to a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f R a m ir e z ’s c la im a n d d e n ie d th e m o tio n . II . A n a ly sis W e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatR ul e 60( b) pr ovi des no bas i s forthe re q u e s te d re lie f. F ir s t, R u le 6 0 (b ) d o e s n o t a p p ly to a c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mos avi , 1 3 8 F . 3 d 1 3 6 5 , 1 3 6 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 1 9 9 8 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( “R ul e 60( b) s i m pl ydoes notpr ovi de forr el i ef f r om j udgm enti n a cr i m i nal c a se .”); Un itedS ta tes v . O ' Ke e fe , 1 6 9 F .3 d 2 8 1 , 2 8 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( s a m e )) . M o re o v e r, g iv e n th a t an a p p e a l o f R a m ire z ’s c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e is curr ent l ypendi ng i n thi s C our t , the di s tr i ctcourthas al r eadybeen di ves t ed of juri sd ict ion o v er related issue s an d R u le 60 ca n n o t be u sed to circu m v en t a fa il u re o f ju ri s d ic tio n . Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Pr o ws , 4 4 8 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). See als o G r iggs v. P r ovi dentC ons um erD is countC o. , 459 U . S. 56, 58 ( 1982) (“ T h e fili n g o f

a n o tice o f

a p p e a l is a n e v e n t o f ju risd ictio n a l sig n ifica n c e — it c o n fe rs ju risd ictio n o n th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a n d d iv e sts th e d istric t co u rt o f its-4-

c o n tro l o v e r th o se a sp e c ts o f th e c a se in v o lv e d in th e a p p e a l.”). F in a lly , R u le 6 0 (b ) i s n o t a n in d e p e n d e n t s o u rc e o f ju ri s d ic tio n in a c ri m in a l c a s e . I n s hor t , R ul e 60( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e does notconfe r j ur i s di ct i on on the di s tr i ctcourtw hen the exi s t ence of a pr i orpendi ng appea l has tr a n s fe rr e d ju ri s d ic tio n to th e c ir c u it c o u rt . I I I . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of R a m ir e z ’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n a n d D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge