FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 20, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 94 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 2- cr-0 06 79 -FAM- 6 USA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us HORACE EDWARD LOCKHART, a.k .a. Cli nt , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 20 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Hor ace Ed wardLock ha rt app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo rrel ie f fro m

jud gm en t p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) . Lockha rt co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de te rm in in g t ha t i t l ack edjuri sd ic ti on , andhe reco un ts th e th ree i ss ue s ra is edin hi s m ot io n: th atth e in di ct m en t was de fect iv e, th atth e in di ct m en t was im pe rm is si bl y

am en de d, an d t ha t the jury was im pr op erl y in st ru ct edon th e is su e o f le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se s. W e rev ie w juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on s de no vo . W il li ams v. Ch atman , 51 0 F .3d 12 90 , 12 93 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). W he re, i n apu rp orte d R

ul e 6 0( b) m ot io n, a d efen dantch al le ng es th e v al id it y of h is co nv ic ti on by seek in g t o a dda ne w gro un d fo r rel ie f oratt ack in g t he pre vi ou s re so lu ti onof acla im on th e m eri ts , th e m ot io n i s p ro pe rly con st ru edas asu cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . Id. at12 93 –9 4 (quo ti ng Gon za le

z v. C ro sb y , 54 5 U.S. 5 24 , 53 2, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 64 1, 2 64 8 (2 00 5) ). Abs en t an ord er fro m

th is Co urt au th or iz in g c on si de rat io n o f a s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt l ack s s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on as t o t ha t p et it io n. Id. at 12 95 ; se e a ls o Fa rr is v. Uni te d Sta tes , 33 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (p er cu ria m ) (t he di st ric t co urt l ack s juris di ct io n t o c on si de r a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 p et it io n wi th ou t o urpri orau th or iz at io n, ev en if t he pe ti ti on is lab el eda Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n) . Bec au se Lock ha rt’s R

ul e 6 0( b) m ot io n a ss ert s t hr ee b as es forrel ie f fro m th e st at e co urt’s jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on , andbe cau se itdo es no t al le ge an y erro r in hi s 2earl ie r § 2 25 5 p ro ceed in gs , th e m ot io n i s p ro pe rly con st ru edas asu cces si ve

habe as pe ti ti on . Se e W

il li ams , 51 0 F .3dat 1 29 3– 94 . Lockha rt d idno t o bt ai n au th or iz at io n fr om

th is Co urt t ha t wo ul d g iv e th e d is tri ctco urt juris di ct io n t o co ns id er a s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on ; t he refo re, the di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly den ie d Loc kh art ’s Rul e 6 0( b) m ot io n fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. AFFIRMED.

3