[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-14091

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 5:17-cv-00096-WTH-PRL; 5:06-cr-00029-WTH-PRL-1

CARL ST. PREUX, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 23, 2020)

Before GRANT, LUCK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Carl St. Preux appeals the district court’s denial of his motion, which he 

argues is a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 60(b) motion, instead of a second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for which he had not obtained permission. On 

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 1 of 6 
2

appeal, St. Preux says that his motion was a proper Rule 60(b) motion because it did 

not attack the merits of the district court’s earlier decision, but rather, argued that the 

court procedurally erred by applying 21 U.S.C. § 851(e)’s statute of limitations and 

declining to consider the merits of his claim. After careful review, we affirm.

We review de novo questions concerning jurisdiction. Williams v. Chatman, 

510 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and 

request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances, including fraud, 

mistake, and newly discovered evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 

545 U.S. 524, 528 (2005). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) provides a basis for a party to seek 

relief from a final judgment in a § 2255 proceeding only to the extent that the rule 

does not conflict with the limitations on successive motions in the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act. See Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 529–30. To obtain relief 

under Rule 60(b)(6), a party must show “extraordinary circumstances” justifying 

reopening a final judgment, and this rarely happens in the habeas context. Id. at 535. 

A court should treat a motion couched in terms of Rule 60(b) as a successive § 2255 

motion if it: (1) “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or (2) “attacks the federal 

court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” Id. at 532 (emphasis omitted). 

When a Rule 60(b) motion qualifies as a second or successive habeas petition, a 

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 2 of 6 
3

district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it absent authorization from us. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2255(h).

A petitioner’s motion attacks a prior ruling “on the merits” when it alleges 

“that the movant is, under the substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled to 

habeas relief.” Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532. It does not, however, attack a prior ruling 

“on the merits” when it “merely asserts that a previous ruling which precluded a 

merits determination was in error -- for example, a denial for such reasons as failure 

to exhaust, procedural default, or statute-of-limitations bar.” Id. at 532 n.4. 

As the record reflects, St. Preux was found guilty in 2007 of conspiracy to 

distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, 

and his sentence was enhanced, through 21 U.S.C. § 851(e), based on two prior 

felony drug convictions, one from March 1995 and one from November 1998. In 

2011, St. Preux filed a motion in the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing, 

among other things, that “he should be re-sentenced because [his 1998] predicate 

state conviction[,] which was used to enhance his federal sentence to a mandatory 

term of life imprisonment under 21 U.S.C. § 851[,] has now been dismissed by the 

state court.” St. Preux v. United States, 539 F. App’x 946, 947 (11th Cir. 2013)

(unpublished). The district court rejected this claim, on the ground that a defendant 

cannot challenge a predicate conviction used to enhance his sentence under § 851 if 

that conviction is more than five years old. On appeal, we affirmed, holding that 

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 3 of 6 
4

“[u]nder the plain language of [§ 851(e)], St. Preux’s challenge to the use of his 1998 

state conviction as a basis for a federal sentencing enhancement is foreclosed by” 

the statute’s five-year time limitation. Id. at 948. 

Thereafter, in 2017, St. Preux filed the instant motion in the district court,

again challenging whether his 1998 conviction was a valid basis for his sentence 

enhancement, arguing that because adjudication was withheld for his 1998

conviction, it was not a felony conviction that triggered a mandatory life sentence, 

pursuant to Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856 (11th Cir. 2011). He labeled the 

instant motion as proceeding under both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Rule 60(b). The 

district court dismissed St. Preux’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion for which 

he had not obtained authorization from this Court. 

We agree with the district court that St. Preux’s motion, which he now styles 

as a Rule 60(b) motion, was a successive § 2255 motion that it had no jurisdiction 

to consider without permission from this Court. As we’ve said, a district court 

should treat a motion couched in terms of Rule 60(b) as a successive § 2255 motion 

if it “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits.” 

Gonzalez, 545 F.3d at 532 (emphasis omitted). St. Preux’s motion makes clear that 

he is disputing the district court’s application of § 851(e) to enhance his sentence --

he argues that in denying his initial § 2255 motion, the district court “failed to apply 

the ruling in” Stewart, which, he says, confirmed that he was entitled to relief and 

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 4 of 6 
5

that his present motion was not successive. Further, in his brief in this appeal, St. 

Preux claims that in ruling on his initial § 2255 motion, the district court applied 

“the wrong principle” from United States v. Watson, 461 F. App’x 887 (11th Cir. 

2012) (unpublished), which held that there are no exceptions to § 851’s five-year 

limitations period for challenging a prior conviction unless the defendant could show 

that his prior conviction was “presumptively void” or “constitutionally invalid.” 

As the record reflects, both of St. Preux’s arguments -- relying on Stewart and 

Watson -- are directed at the resolution of the question posed by St. Preux’s initial § 

2255 motion, which was whether § 851(e), as a legal matter, applied to his habeas 

proceeding. Notably, these arguments do not address any fraud, factual mistake, 

newly discovered evidence, or other grounds that would allow St. Preux’s motion to 

fall under Rule 60(b). Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 528. Thus, St. Preux’s motion seeks 

to attack “the substance of the federal court’s resolution of [his] claim on the merits,” 

and is, thus, a successive § 2255 motion rather than a Rule 60(b) motion. Id. at 532. 

As for St. Preux’s reliance on Gonzalez to support his argument that attacking 

a district court’s application of a statute of limitations does not count as an attack on 

the merits, his application of Gonzalez is mistaken. In Gonzalez, the Supreme Court 

held that, where the petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the district 

court’s ruling regarding § 2244(b)’s statute of limitations that precluded a merits 

determination of his habeas claim, his motion did not challenge the merits of the 

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 5 of 6 
6

district court’s decision, and, accordingly, was a proper Rule 60(b) motion. Id. at 

535-36. Here, however, a different kind of statute of limitations issue was presented 

to the district court. In Gonzalez, the AEDPA’s statute of limitations had run, 

thereby precluding the district court from ruling on the merits of the habeas petition

at all. Here, St. Preux filed his initial habeas petition within AEDPA’s statute of 

limitations, so the district court was able to reach the merits of his habeas claim that 

his sentence should not have been enhanced through § 851(e), and determined that 

St. Preux was not entitled to habeas relief because, based on the time limits provided 

in § 851(e) itself (and not AEDPA), he could not use § 851 to challenge his 1998

conviction. 

Because St. Preux is challenging the merits determination in the earlier 

AEDPA proceedings that he was not entitled to relief based on § 851 -- and not a 

procedural defect in those proceedings -- the district court properly construed his 

motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Further, because St. Preux did not 

seek prior authorization from this Court before filing his motion in the district court, 

the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Thus, 

the district court did not err in dismissing St. Preux’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-14091 Date Filed: 01/23/2020 Page: 6 of 6