IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31033

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL O’KEEFE, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:95-CR-106-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael O’Keefe Sr., a former federal prisoner who stands convicted of 

conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and money laundering, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its denial of his motion for a 

certificate of innocence. He argues that the district court erred in construing 

his motion “to vacate, set aside, annul and declare as void” his money 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31033 Document: 00515027030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2019
No. 18-31033

2

laundering conviction based upon United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008), 

as a motion requesting a certificate of innocence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513.

As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, O’Keefe must have 

statutory authority for the filing of his motion. See Veldhoen v. United States 

Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994). “Absent jurisdiction conferred 

by statute, district courts lack power to consider claims.” Id. We review a 

denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Edward H. 

Bolin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir. 1993).

On the same day that O’Keefe filed the instant motion, he filed two civil 

suits seeking damages from the Government and others for violations of his 

constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for false imprisonment 

under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court notified O’Keefe that 

because his civil suit for false imprisonment could not proceed without him 

first obtaining a certificate of innocence, it was construing his motion as one 

seeking such a certificate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2513. O’Keefe filed a 

response to the district court’s notice and agreed to his motion being construed 

as one for a certificate of innocence. In denying his motion for reconsideration, 

the district court noted O’Keefe’s agreement to its construction of his motion 

and determined that his motion could not have been considered under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 because he had been released from custody and his motion was 

filed two years after he had been released. 

While the district court’s denial of a motion for a certificate of innocence 

was a foregone conclusion because O’Keefe’s money laundering conviction had 

not been set aside as required by § 2513, O’Keefe offers no other statutory basis 

for jurisdiction over his motion, and, in fact, he expressly states that he was 

not seeking § 2255 or habeas corpus relief. Without a statutory source of 

jurisdiction, his motion was a meaningless, unauthorized motion that the 

 Case: 18-31033 Document: 00515027030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2019
No. 18-31033

3

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider. See United States v. Duque, 636 

F. App’x 884 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 

(5th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, given the fact that O’Keefe’s motion was filed 

simultaneously with his civil suits, that O’Keefe agreed to the district court 

construing his motion as one for a certificate of innocence, and that O’Keefe

fails to demonstrate any other viable basis of jurisdiction for his motion, he has 

not shown that the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration was 

an abuse of discretion. See Edward H. Bolin Co., 6 F.3d at 353. The district 

court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-31033 Document: 00515027030 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/09/2019