[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10596

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20531-UU-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

STEPHEN TELEMAQUE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 23, 2019)

Before WILSON, ANDERSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 19-10596 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Stephen Telemaque, a federal prisoner serving a 180-month prison term, 

appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We affirm. 

The 2015 Criminal Case (15-20531)

In 2015 Telemaque was convicted of violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) 

and 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 (a)(1) and (b). He pled guilty to one count under a written 

plea agreement. He later moved to withdraw his plea; the district court denied the 

motion to withdraw but permitted Telemaque to challenge relevant sentencing 

factors. The district court ultimately sentenced Telemaque to 180 months. This 

Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Telemaque’s motion to withdraw.

The 2018 § 2255 Motion (18-23516)

In 2018 Telemaque filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the 

motion to vacate. This Court declined to grant Telemaque a certificate of 

appealability to appeal the denial of his § 2255 motion. Telemaque also moved to 

amend his § 2255 motion, which the district court denied. Telemaque appealed

that decision, and this Court has opened a separate appeal (18-14757) with respect 

to Telemaque’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his 

2018 § 2255 motion. A briefing schedule has been set in appeal No. 18-14757.

Rule 60(b) Motions (15-20531 and 18-23516)

Case: 19-10596 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 2 of 5 
3

Telemaque has now filed identical motions under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) in both the 2015 criminal case and the 2018 civil case. In the 

2018 civil case, the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that 

the Rule 60(b) motion constituted an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 

motion. Telemaque appealed that order, which was dismissed for want of 

prosecution.

In the 2015 criminal case, the district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion 

because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be used to seek relief in a 

criminal case. This is the appeal of that decision.

This Appeal

We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration for abuse of 

discretion. Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006). Rule 60(b) 

motions may relieve a party from a judgment due to: (1) mistake, inadvertence, 

surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which could not 

have been discovered earlier with due diligence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or 

other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) a void judgment; (5) a judgment that has 

been satisfied, released, discharged, reversed, or vacated; or (6) any other reason 

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 

60 generally does not provide relief from judgment in a criminal case. See United 

States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998).

Case: 19-10596 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 3 of 5 
4

A prisoner may file a Rule 60 motion on a “limited basis” to allege a defect 

in the integrity of his habeas proceedings with respect to the denial of his § 2255 

motion. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2007). The 

Supreme Court, in Gonzalez v. Crosby, explained that the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure apply to habeas proceedings to the extent that they are “not inconsistent 

with applicable federal statutory provisions.” 545 U.S. 524, 529 (2005) (quotation 

marks omitted).1

Telemaque raises two alleged defects in his habeas proceedings: (1) that the 

district court failed to hold his Rule 60(b) motion in abeyance due to United States 

v. Phifer, 909 F.3d 372 (11th Cir. 2018), and (2) that the district court did not 

permit him to amend his motion pending the outcome of Phifer. Neither of the 

actions complained of occurred in the case below, the 2015 criminal case (15-

20531). Rather, both Telemaque’s request to hold his Rule 60(b) motion in 

abeyance and the denial of his request to amend occurred in the 2018 civil case

(18-23516).

Telemaque has appealed these alleged defects in the wrong proceeding. His 

first claim should have been raised in his appeal in his civil habeas case where he 

1 Although the Supreme Court in Gonzalez noted that it was limiting its consideration to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases, we have held that the standard announced in Gonzalez applies to federal 

prisoner cases as well. See Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293, 1323 (11th Cir. 2011) (en 

banc), overruled on other grounds by McCarthan v. Dir. Of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 

F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). 

Case: 19-10596 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 4 of 5 
5

filed his request to hold his Rule 60(b) motion in abeyance. His second claim is at 

issue in his pending appeal in appeal no. 18-14757, and we decline to address it 

here. We accordingly affirm.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-10596 Date Filed: 09/23/2019 Page: 5 of 5