FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 16 18 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNos . 08 -2 24 96 -CV-J IC 02 -2 01 30 CR-J IC TIRAS N. HARDY, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oct ob er 1 9, 2 01 1) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, MARC US an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la nt , Tiras Hardy

ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s Fe de ral Ru le of Civ il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) m ot io n t o v acat e th e jud gm en t d en y in g h is pre vi ou sl yfil ed28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 m ot io n. In th is ap pe al , Hardy arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt
erre d i n (1 ) de nyin g h is Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n o n t he gro un d t ha t t he m ot io n was in
subs ta nc e a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n; an d (2 ) de nyin g h is reque stto tre athi s R ul e 60 (b ) m ot io n a s a p et it io n p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 41 . For the reas on s t ha t fo ll ow, we af

firm . I. Inth e u nd erl y in g c riminal pro se cu ti on , Hardy was c ha rg edwit h a ndpl ed gu il ty to t wo s ub st an ti ve co un ts of p os se ss io n o f co cai ne wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edHardy as acare er of fen de r in li gh t o f a p rio r co nv ic ti on forcarry in g aco nc eal edweap on , whi ch at th e ti m e co ns ti tu te d aqu al ifyin g c rime of v io le nc e und er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1, an d ba se d o n apri orco nv ic ti on forpo ss es si on of c oc ai ne wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . The re i s n o d is pu te as t o wh et he r Hard y di d i n fa ctco m

m itth es e two off

en se s. Due to th e car eer o ffen de r de si gn at io n, Har dy’ s cr im in al hi st ory de si gn at io n in crea se d fr om

V to VI, andhi s b as e o ffen se lev el in crea se d fr om lev el 26 to 32 , whi chth e d is tri ctco urt re du cedto 29 ba se d o n Har dy’ s ac cep ta nc e o f
res po ns ib il it y

forhi s cr im es . The g ui de li ne ran ge for a ba se off

en se lev el of 2 9
was 15 1 t o 1 88 m on th s o f im pr is on m en t. With ou t ca reeroff en de r st atus , Hardy wou ldha ve ha d aba se off en se lev el of 2 3 a nda cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of V, 2whi chwou ldha ve m ad e th e g ui de li ne ran ge forhi s s en te nc e 8 4 t o 1 05 m on th s.

The di st ric t co urt s ub se qu en tl y sen te nc edHardy

to 15 1 m on th s o f in carc erat io n. Hardy ap pe al edhi s s en te nc e an d c la im edth athi s cl as si fic at io n a s a c aree r of fen de r was erro ne ou s b ecau se a co nv ic ti on forcarry in g aco nc eal edweap on was no t a q ua li fy in g c rime of v io le nc e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .1. Thi s co urt af firm ed
. Afte r th is co urt d en ie d h is ap pe al , Hardy fil eda m ot io n t o v acat e h is
se nt en ce u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 . In thi s m ot io n, Har dy agai n ra is edhi s cl ai m 1 th athi s cl as si fic at io n a s a c aree r of fen de r was in erro r be cau se hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on fo r carry in g aco nc eal edweap on was n ota cri m e o f vi ol en ce. The di stric t co urt de ni edth is m ot io n, an d Har dy didno t ap pe al . There aft er, Hardy fil eda Ru le 60 (b )(5 ) m ot io n wh ic h h e en ti tl ed“ Mo ti on to Vacat e Ju dg m en t, En te redan d Res ti ng on a Leg al Pri nc ip le Afte r th e Supr em e Co urt’s Ab ro ga ti on th atCan No Lon ge r Und er Th os e Bas es Be Su st ai ne d.” In t hi s m ot io n, h e as se rte d tha t i n l ig ht of th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Begay v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 3 U.S. 1 37 , 12 8 S
. Ct . 15 81 (20 08 ), an d t hi s co urt’s d eci si on in Uni te d Sta tes v. Ar ch er , 53 1 F .3d 13 47 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) , he i s “ actua ll y in no cen t” of b ei ng a care er o ffen de r an d 2 This section allows fe dera l prisoners to claim a right to be r elea sed fr om imprisonment on the 1 g rounds that “the se ntence was imposed in violation of the Constitut ion or the laws of the United States . . . or is otherwise subjec t to collatera l attack.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). This court in Archer

held that a c onviction for ca rry ing a conce aled f

irea rm is not a crime of 2 violence f or the purpose s of ca

ree r off ender enhanc ement in deter

mining the se ntence of a f eder al prisoner in a ccor dance with the Fe dera l SentencingGuidelines. Archer , 531 F. 3d at 1352. 3was th us im

pr op erl y sen te nc ed . Howev er, the di st ric t co urt ch arac te riz edHardy ’s
m ot io n a s a s uc ces si ve m ot io n t o v acat e b ro ug htun de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 a ndno t
as a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n t o v acat e th e se nt en ce. The refo re, the di st ric t co urt di sm is se d Har dy’ s m ot io n fo r la ckof s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on be cau se hi s m ot io n d idno t m eetth e req ui rem en ts of t he sav in gs claus e–whi ch all ows pr is on ers to bri ng a su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n i n l im it edcir cu m st an ces as a pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1–an d t he Elev en th Cir cu itha d
no t g iv en Hardy

pe rm is si on to fil e a s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Se e 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h ) (ref

erri ng to 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( a)(3 )(B) ). Hardy ap pe al ed , andth e d is tri ct
co urt g ran te d acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”). II.

“ The av ai labi li ty of habe as rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1 p res en ts a qu es ti on of la w;” t hu s, t hi s co urt co nduc ts a de no vo rev ie w. Dar by v. Hawk -S aw yer , 40 5 F.3 d 9 42 , 94 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5)
. III. Co ll at eral att ack s o n the leg al it y of afed eral sen te nc e typi cal ly m us t b e br ou gh t u nd er § 22 55
. Id
. Cou rts m us t l oo k p as t t he lab el of am ot io n i n o rd er t o de te rm in e it s ac tu al leg al effe ctan d m us t t reatth e m ot io n a cco rd in g t o i ts leg al effe ct , rathe r th an it s fo rm al na m e. Uni te d Sta tes v. J or da n , 91 5 F .2d62 2, 6 24 –2 5 4(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Rul e 6 0( b) m ot io ns can no t b e u se d t o “ ev ad e th e se co ndor

su cces si ve pe ti ti on ba r . . . by eit he r ad di ng a ne w gro un d fo r rel ie f or att ack in g th e fed eral co urt’s p rev io us reject io n o f a cl ai m on th e m eri ts .” Gilbe rt

v. Uni te d St at es , 64 0 F .3d12 93 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ) (h ol di ng th atth e ru le
es po us edin Gon za le

z v. C ro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 5 24 (20 05 ), whi chde ci de d t ha t s ta te pr is on ers co ul d n otcir cu m ve ntth e b ar o n s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on s b y fil in g Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io ns , app li es equa ll y to fed eral pri so ne rs ). Ther efo re, wh ena fed eral pri so ne r se ek s t o “ as se rt o r rea ss erta cl ai m forrel ie f, in st eadof p oi nt in g ou t a d efec t i n t he in te gr it y of the earl ie r § 2 25 5 m ot io n p rece di ng inhi s ca se . . . hi s m ot io n i s t he equi va le ntof asec on d o r su cces si ve m ot io n . . . .” Id
. Hardy ’s firs t § 22 55 m ot io n b ro ug hta cl ai m th athe was i m

pr op erl y se nt en cedba se d o n a n i napp ro pr ia te de te rm in at io n tha t h e was a care er o ffen de r. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n o n Oct ob er 2 6, 2 00 4, an d Har dy didno t ap pe al . Hardy has no w fil edan ot he r m ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e an d a rg ue s t he
ex actsame iss ue as i n h is fir st§ 2 25 5 m ot io n. Th ou gh he m as ks th is m ot io n a s a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, i t i s at ta ck in g apre vi ou s re jecti on of t he cla im

onth e m eri ts . Reg ard le ss of Ha rdy ’s lab el of t he m ot io n, i t i s a § 22 55 ch al le ng e to th e le ga li ty of Hardy ’s sen te nc e. Ther efo re, i t m us t b e an al y zedacco rd in g t o the rul es setou t in 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5 fo r se co ndor s uc ces si ve m ot io ns . 5A sec on d o r su cces si ve m ot io n c an no t b e en te rta in edby the di st ric t co urt

un le ss itha s fi rs t b een cert ifi edby the ap pr op ria te co urt o f ap pe al s as co nt ai ni ng

ne wly di sc ov e red ev id en ce th at , if pr ov en an d vi ewed in li gh t of th e ev id en c e a s a who le , wou ld be su ffi ci en t to es tabl is h by cl ear an d co nv in ci n g e vi de nc e th at no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ld ha ve fo un d th e m ov an t gu il ty of th e of fen se ; or a ne w ru le of co ns ti tu ti on al law, m ad e ret ro ac t i ve to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt, t ha t was pre vi ou sl y un av ai labl e. 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( h) (20 11 ). Hardy di d n otob ta in th is co urt’s au th or iz at io n fo r a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Fu rth erm or e, th is co urt wo ul d n otbe ab le to gr an t s uc h aut ho riz at io n b ecau se Hardy can no t s at is fy

eit he r requi rem en t i n § 22 55 (h ). Ther e is no arg um en t tha t n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce ex is ts , andHardy do es no t cl ai m

th athe is in no cen t o f th e cri m e fo r whi chhe was c on vi ct ed
. Se e Gil be rt , 64 0 F . 3dat 13 18 . There fo re, the di st ric t co urt l ack edsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in th is m ot io n. Far ris v. Un it ed St at es , 33 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 16 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Howev er, § 22 55 (e) d oe s co nt ai n asav in gs claus e th atwil l al lo w a fed eral pri so ne r to bri ng a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as m ot io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 i n c ert ai n l im it edsi tu at io ns witho utful fil li ng th e req ui rem en ts of 28 § 2 25 5( h) . 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 5( e) (2 01 1)
. Pu rs uantto th e sa vi ng s cl au se fou ndin § 2 25 5( e), a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n c anbe he ardby a dis tri ctco urt ab se ntau th or iz at io n b y a co urt o f 6ap pe al s i f th e fed eral pri so ne r canest ab li sh th atth e rem edy pro vi de d u nd er § 22 55 is “ in ad equa te or i ne ffec ti ve to tes t t he leg al it y of h is de te nt io n.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 (e); Dar by , 40 5 F .3dat 9 45 . In o rd er t o t ak e adva nt ag e o f th e sa vi ng s cl au se , th e fed eral pri so ne r m

us t fi le a § 2 24 1 p et it io n a tt ack in g h is co nv ic ti on an d
se nt en ce. Dar by, 40 5 F .3dat 9 45 . Howev er, “ [t]he ex is te nc e o f th e st atut ory ba r on sec on d a ndsu cces si ve m ot io ns can no t m ean th at§ 2 25 5 i s i na de qu at e o r in effe ct iv e to tes t t he leg al it y of [ Hard y ’s] de te nt io n wi th in th e m ean in g o f th e sa vi ng s cl au se .” Gil be rt

, 64 0 F . 3dat 1 30 8 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . As
we rece nt ly deci de d i n Gil be rt , with fa ct s s tri ki ng ly sim il ar t o t he cu rren t ca se , th e sa vi ng s cl au se of § 22 55 (e) d oe s n otpe rm ita pr is on er t o b rin g acla im in a § 2 24 1 pe ti ti on th atth e Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ha ve be enm is ap pl ie d i n de te rm in in g h is sen te nc e if th atcla im

is un av ai labl e b ecau se of § 22 55 (h )’s ba r on se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io ns . Id
. at13 22 –2 3. Here, h ad Arch er

be en de ci de d a t t he ti m e o f Hard y ’s sen te nc in g, h e wou ld
no t h av e b eensen te nc edas acare er o ffen de r; h owe ve r, Hardy ’s m ot io n s eek s t o as se rt o r rea ss erta cl ai m

forrel ie f an d d oe s n otpo in t o uta de fectin th e ear li er § 22 55 pro ceed in g. Th eref or e, itis anim

pe rm is si bl e se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5
m ot io n t ha t ru ns afo ul of t he ba r on su ch m ot io ns ab se ntau th or iz at io n fr om th e co urt o f ap pe al s. Th e st atut e p recl ud es a di ffer en t o ut co m e d es pi te th e in te rv en in g 7ch an ge in th e cas e la w in te rp ret in g t he Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Id
. at 13 18
. Fi na ll y , so m e ci rcu it s h av e b ro ad en edth e afo rem en ti on ed“ actua l in no cen ce” s ta tu to ry

ex cep ti on fou ndin §2 25 5( h) by uti li zi ng th e sa vi ng s cl au se in § 2 25 5( e) t o i nc lu de th os e si tu at io ns in whi ch a fed eral pri so ne r is co nf in edfor
an off en se th atsubs eque ntcas e la w det erm in es do es no t co ns ti tu te a cri m e. Id
. at 13 18 –1 9. Th is co urt h as als o s ho wn a wi ll in gn es s t o a ll ow a p ris on er t o b rin g a§ 22 41 m ot io n p ur su an t t o t he § 2 25 5( e) s av in gs claus e if th e Supr em e Co urt de ci de d a“ ret ro act iv el y

ap pl ic ab le , cir cu itlaw- bu st in g d eci si on ” th at“ es tabl is he d th athe ha d b een co nv ic te d o f a no ne xist en t cr ime .” Id . at 13 19 (ci ti ng W of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F . 3d12 36 , 12 42 –4 5 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 8) ) (em ph as is ad de d) . Howev er, a jury of hi s p eers co nv ic te d Har dy of two co un ts of p os se ss in g c oc ai ne wit h i nt en t to di st rib ut e, an d n o c as e la w has de te rm in edth atth es e o ffen se s d o n otco ns ti tu te cri m es . Mor eo ve r, th e “ actua l i nn oc en ce” e xc ep ti on ha s o nl y be en ap pl ie d t o erro rs in sen te nc in g wh en a “ co ns ti tu ti on al erro r res ul te d i n t he pe ti ti on er be co m in g s ta tu to ril y

eli gi bl e fo r a d eat h s en te nc e th atco ul d n otot he rwis e h av e be en im po se d.” Sa wye r v. Whi tl ey , 50 5 U.S. 3 33 , 34 8– 50 , 11 2 S . Ct. 2 51 4, 25 23 –2 5 (1 99 2) ; Gil be rt , 64 0 F . 3dat 1 32 0. Th atis no t t he si tu at io n wi th whi ch we are f acedin th e p res en t ca se . 8IV.

Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s we a ffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t de nyin g Har dy’ s R

ul e 6 0( b) m ot io n t o v acat e. 

### A F F I R M E D .

9