2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-1-2006 

# U SA v . B urk e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5277

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . B urke " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 636. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/636BP S - 2 4 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 5277 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RO BE RT B. BU RK E R ober tB ur ke, A ppel l ant

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 96- cv- 3249) ( R el at ed t o C r . N o. 92- cr - 00268- 01) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le W il li am H . Y o h n , Jr.

_______________________________________ Subm i tt ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6

J une 15, 2006 B efore: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2006)

________________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

________________ P E R C UR I AM A p p e llan t R o b e rt B u rk e a p p e a ls f ro m a D istric t C o u rt o rd e r d e n y in g h is i ndepende ntact i on al l egi ng fr aud upon the courtpur s uantt o H aze l - A t l as G l as s C o. v.2

H ar t for d E m pi r e C o. , 322 U . S. 238 ( 1944) . B eca us e the appe al pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m . See L. A . R . 27. 4. B eca us e the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s , w e w i l l onl ybr i efl yr eci t e them her e. I n 1993, a fe der al j ur yfound B ur ke gui l t yof, i nt eral i a, t he murde rof D onna Wi l l a r d , a f

e d e r a l w i t n e s s . T h e D i s t r i c tC o u r ts e n t e n c e d h i m t o l i f e i n p r i s o n . We a f f ir m e d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . In 1 9 9 6 , B u rk e f ile d a m o tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed. B ur ke fi l ed a s econd a ct i on i n 1999, ar gui ng t hatt he prosecuti on com m i t t ed fraud on t he co urt . T he D i stri ctC ou rtcon strued t he fil i ng as a sec o n d m o ti o n u n d er § 2 2 5 5 . E v en tho u g h the D istri ct C o u rtd ism issed the a cti o n u n d er § 2255, i tas s um ed ar guendo thatt he mot i on w oul d notr equi r e thi s C our t ’ s author i zat i on, a n d f o u n d th a t B u rk e f

a iled to sh o w th a t th e p ro se c u tio n c o m m itt e d f ra u d o n th e c o u rt. I n 2005, B ur ke fi l ed the curr entH aze l - A t l as act i on al l egi ng t hatt he pr os ecut i on k n e w o rs h o u l d h a v e k n o w n t h a tw i t n e s s e s , J a m e s D a v i d L o u i e a n d J a m e s G r a y, pr es ent ed fa l s e t es t i m onyatt r i al . H e s uppor t ed hi s as s er t i on bypr es ent i ng “new e v id e n c e ” in th e f

o rm o f a f f id a v its f ro m se v e ra l in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re e ith e r in v o lv e d in t he murde rorw er e ac quai nt ed w i t h L oui e orG r ay . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he H aze l - A t l as act i on di d notfal l under§ 2255. H ow ever , i tdeni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng t hatB ur ke’ s evi dence w as nots uffi ci ent l yconvi nci ng t o es t abl i s h t hatt he pr os ecut i on c o m m itt e d f

ra u d u p o n th e c o u rt. B u rk e f iled a n o tice o f

a p p e a l. W e hav e no tbefo re s t at ed thata fraud u po n the cou rtcl ai m un der H azel -A t l as i s a3

b a sis to a v o id th e v a rio u s g a te k e e p in g re q u ire m e n ts p ro v id e d b y§ 2 2 5 5 . S e e g e n e ra lly Ca l d e r o n v . Th o mp s o n , 5 2 3 U. S . 5 3 8 , 5 5 7 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a tHa z e l - At l a s c l a i ms s t r ongl yr educe t he i nt er es ti n fi nal i t yof a j udgm entpr ocur ed byfr aud and i m pl y i ng t hat h ab ea s restri cti o n s m igh t no t app ly ). H o w ev er, w e d o n o t nee d to d ec ide th is i ssu e h ere beca us e eve n as s um i ng t hata fr aud upon the courtcl ai m i s an i ndepende ntact i on, B ur ke f a ils to s h o w h e is e n title d to re lie f. “[A ] n i ndepende ntact i on al l egi ng fr aud upon the courti s compl et el ydi s t i nctfr om a m o tio n u n d e r [ F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re ] 6 0 (b ),” a n d m a yb e ra is e d a t a n ytim e . H err i ng v. U ni t ed St at es , 424 F. 3d 384, 389 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n H err i ng, w e expl ai ned that i n or dert o r ece i ve the extr aor di nar i l yr ar e r el i ef thatH aze l - A t l as pr ovi des , t her e mustbe “(1 ) an inten ti o n al frau d ; ( 2 ) byan o ff icer o f th e c o u rt ; ( 3 ) w h ich is d ir ec ted a t th e c o u rt i t sel f; and (4) i n fac tdeceives the co urt . ” Id. at38 6-87. W e furt her hel d thatt hese el ement s m us tbe s uppor t ed by“cl ear , unequi vocal and convi nci ng evi dence . ” I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yfound thatB ur ke’ s H aze l - A t l as act i on i s nott he fundament al equi val entof a § 2255 mot i on. I tal s o corr ect l yconcl uded thatB ur ke fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence t hatt he pr os ecut i on i nt ent i onal l ym i s l ed the cour t . N one of the fournew aff i davi t s char ges t hata pr os ecut i ng offi ci al had ac tual know l edge of

t he fa l s i t yof ei t herL oui e’ s orG r ay ’ s t es t i m ony . I n fac t , onl yW al t erK at es s ta te s th a t th e “ f

e d s ” a n d th e “ G o v e rn m e n t” to ld L o u ie to te s tif ya g a in s t B u rk e .I ti s u n c l e a rwhe t h e ra c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t yi s r e q u i r e d f o rt h i s a p p e a l . To 1 t he ext entt hati ti s , t he appe l l ant ’ s r eques tforone i s deni ed. T o t he ext enti ti s not , t he r e q u e s ti s d e n i e d a s u n n e c e s s a r y. 4 H o w e v e r, th is is n o t su f f icie n t to im p lica te th e p ro se c u tin g o f f icia ls s p e c if

ica lly . E v e n if B ur ke’ s evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatL oui e and G r ayl i ed on the s t and, i tdoes n o te s t a b l i s h t h a tt h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n t e n t i o n a l l y p e r m i t t e d o rc o n d o n e d i t . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e re e x ists n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n , an d w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 1