[DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 35 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :1 1- cv -0 02 18 -WT H-KRS STANLEY MCCRAY, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r - App el la nt , ve rs us WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN - LOW , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: St an le y McC ray, pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om a di st ric t co urt o rd er Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 1 of 7de nyin g h is m ot io ns , fil edun de r Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 5 9 a nd60 (b ),

fo r rel ie f fro m

a jud gm en t d is m is si ng hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 41 pe ti ti on fora writof habe as co rp us . After r ev ie w, we affi rm . I. McC ray is servi ng a 18 8- m on th sen te nc e fo r po ss es si on of afir earm by a co nv ic te d fe lo n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). He fil eda m ot io n t o v acat e hi s s en te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 , whi chth e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d i n 2 00 8 witho utis su in g acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (COA). Thi s co urt d is m is se d McC ray’ s ap pe al fro m

th atord er as un ti m el y . The n, i n Ap ril 20 11 , he f il eda § 2 24 1 p et it io n s eek in g re li ef fro m hi s se nt en ce u nd er the sav in gs claus e o f § 2 25 5( e), arg ui ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt 1 erre d i n s en te nc in g h im

un de r th e en ha nc edpe na lt y pro vi si on s o f th e Arm ed Care er Cr im in al Act (AC CA), 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). He co nt en de d tha t h e was actua ll y in no cen t o f th e ACCA en ha nc em en t b ecau se on e o f th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredto be a vi ol en t fe lo ny, a con vi ct io n fo r ag gr av at ed as saul t, was actua ll y

a m is de m ean or . He ass ert edth at , un de r th e Supr em e Co urt’s

This section permits a prisone r to petition for re lief under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion is 1 “inade quate or

ineffe ctive to test the leg ality of his detention.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) . 2 Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 2 of 7de ci si on in Uni te d Sta tes v. O’Br ie n , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 16 9 (2 01 0) , hi s d es ig na ti on as 2 anarm edcare er cr im in al was asep arat e o ffen se fro m hi s u nd erl y in g fi rearm po ss es si on off

en se an d, ac co rd in gl y , requi redpro of of t hr ee v io le ntfel on y co nv ic ti on s b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t. On J un e 9 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d M cCra y ’s pet it io n, em ph as iz in g t ha t h e was no t en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r O’Bri en be cau se he ha d n ot sh own th at O’Bri en was re tro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le to hi s ca se . Se e W of fo rd v. Sc ot t , 17 7 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ The sav in gs claus e o f § 2 25 5 app li es to a cl ai m when : 1 ) th atcla im

is ba se d upo n aretro act iv el y ap pl ic ab le Supr em e Co urt de ci si on ; 2 ) th e h ol di ng of t ha t Supr em e Co urt d eci si on est ab li sh es th e p et it io ne r was co nv ic te d fo r a n on ex is te ntoff en se ; an d 3 ) ci rcu itlaw s qu arel y for ecl os ed su cha cl ai m

at t he ti m e itothe rwis e sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d i n t he pe ti ti on er’s tri al , app eal , or fi rs t § 22 55 m ot io n.” ). But see Gil be rt

v. Uni te d Sta tes , 64 0 F .3d 12 93 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ) (“ The actua l h ol di ng of t he W of fo rd de ci si on . . . is si m

pl y th atth e sa vi ng s cl au se do es no t co ve r se nt en ce cl ai m s t ha t co ul d h av e b eenrai se d i n e arl ie r pr oc eed in gs .”), cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 1 00 1

In O’Brien , the Supreme Court he ld that the machine- gun provision of 18 U.S.C. 2 § 924(c) — which imposes a 30- year mandatory

minimumsentenc e for

a def endant who use s, car ries, or posse sses a mac hine gun — is an eleme nt of the off ense ( rathe r than a

sentenc ing fac tor) and must be pr oven beyond a re asonable doubt. 130 S. C t. at 2174-75, 2178. 3 Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 3 of 7(2 01 2) .

McC ray di d n otap pe al fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t o f th atord er, wh ic h was en te redon th e sa m e d ay . Ins te ad , onJu ly 18, 2 01 1, M cCra y fil edm ot io ns for rel ie f fro m

jud gm en t u nd er Ru le s 5 9 a nd60 (b ). He ass ert edth athi s § 22 41 pe ti ti on was b as edno t o n O’Bri en , bu t o n Uni te d Sta tes v. J oh ns on , 13 0 S . Ct. 12 65 (20 10 ), whi ch he arg ue d app li edretro act iv el y to hi s ca se . The d is tri ctco urt de ni edMcC ray’ s m ot io ns , andth is is hi s ap pe al of tha t d en ia l. 3 II. W e rev ie w foranab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ajud gm en t. Min cey v . Head , 20 6 F .3d11 06 , 11 37 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . An ab us e o f di sc ret io n o ccu rs “ if t he jud ge fai ls to ap pl y th e pr op er l eg al st an da rdor t o fo ll ow p ro pe r pr oc edur es inm ak in g t he de te rm in at io n, or. . . [m ak es ] fin di ng s o f fac t tha t ar e cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Id
. at 1 13 7 n .69 (al te rat io ns inori gi na l) ( in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . A pet it io ne r m

us t fi le a Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n “ no lat er tha n 2 8 d ay s af te r th e en try of the jud gm en t.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 59 (e). “ A cou rt m us t n otex te ndth e ti m e to actun de r” Ru le 59 (e). Fed . R. Civ . P. 6(b )(2 ). Here, the di stric t co urt en te red McCray also appe aled the district c ourt’s June 9, 2011 order a nd judgme nt denying his § 3 2241 petition. On May

30, 2012, this court dismiss ed McCra y ’s appe al from that or der a s untimely . 4

Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 4 of 7jud gm en t d en y in g M cCra y ’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n o n J un e 9 , 20 11 . McCra y fil edhi s Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n 3 9 d ay s l at er, o n J ul y 18 . His m ot io n was th eref or e unt im el y . Bas edon Ru le 6(b )(2 )’s m an da te , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de nyin g M cCra y ’s m ot io n. III. W e al so rev ie w foranab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f rel ie f un de r Ru le 60 (b ). Ja cks on v. Cr os by , 43 7 F .3d12 90 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A pe ti ti on er m ay

ob ta in rel ie f fro m

a jud gm en t due to : (1 ) “ m is ta ke , in adve rte nc e, su rp ris e, orex cu sabl e n eg le ct ”; (2) “ ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce tha t, wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e, co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredinti m e to m ov e fo r a n ew tri al ”; (3) “ frau d . . . , m is rep res en ta ti on , or m is co nduc t b y anop po si ng pa rty”; (4 ) a v oi d ju dg m en t; (5) a jud gm en t tha t h as be ensat is fie d, re le as ed , di sc ha rg ed , rev ers ed , or v acat ed ; o r (6 ) “ an y ot he r reas on th atjus ti fie s re li ef.” Fe d. R. C iv . P. 60 (b ). Onl y

th e la stof t he se co ul d p laus ib ly app ly to M cCra y ’s cla im s. “ [R]eli ef un de r th is claus e is anex tra or di na ry rem edy whi chm ay

be in vo ke d o nl y

up on a sh owi ng of e xc ep ti on al cir cu m st an ces .” Gri ff in v. Sw im-T

ech Co rp . , 72 2 F .2d 67 7, 6 80 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g McC ray’ s R

ul e 6 0( b) m ot io n. To th e ex te ntMcC ray co nt in ue s t o a rg ue th athe is 5 Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 5 of 7en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r O’Bri en , we di sa gr ee. O’Bri en is factua ll y an d l eg al ly in ap po si te : i t co nc ern edon ly the m ach in e-g un pro vi si on in18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c) an d d idno t ad dr es s t he ACCA atall . 13 0 S . Ct. at21 78 . The d is tri ctco urt acco rd in gl y

di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o re tro act iv el y ap pl y O’Bri en ’s reas on in g. The di stric t co urt al so di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g tha t Jo hn so n di d n otpro vi de McC ray a b as is forrel ie f. In Jo hn so n , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d th atth e Fl or id a fel on y

ba tt ery of

fen se , whi chdi d n othave as a n e le m en t the us e o f ph y si cal for ce ag ai ns t an ot he r, di d n otne ces sa ril y co ns ti tu te a vi ol en t fe lo ny for pu rp os es of t he ACCA. 13 0 S . Ct. at12 69 -7 2. Mc Cray do es no t ar gu e th athi s fel on y off en se is no t a v io le ntfel on y ; ra th er, h e as se rts , witho utan y supp ort, tha t hi s Fl or id a ag gr av at edass au ltoff en se was o nl y

a m is de m ean or . Jo hn so n , whi ch do es no t co nc ernag gr av at edass au ltor a dd res s t he di st in ct io n b etweenfel on ie s an d m is de m ean or s, d oe s n otap pl y to McC ray’ s ca se . There fo re, b ecau se itis no t ba se d upo n Jo hn so n , eve n a ss um in g M cCra y ’s un supp orte d a ss ert io n tha t h is ag gr av at edass au ltco nv ic ti on is fora m is de m ean oron ly, th atcla im co ul d a nd sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d e arl ie r. It the refo re d oe s n otop enth e d oo r to rel ie f un de r § 2 25 5( e)’s s av in gs claus e. Gil be rt , 64 0 F .3dat 1 31 9. Last ly, McC ray arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal th atth e d is tri ctco urt 6 Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 6 of 7im

pe rm is si bl y

rel ie d upo n a rres t re co rd s t o d et erm in e th athi s co nv ic ti on s wer e vi ol en t fe lo ni es un de r th e ACCA. He ci te s Sh ep ard v . Uni te d Sta tes , 54 4 U.S. 1 3, 26 (20 05 ), in whi ch th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t a s en te nc in g c ou rt c an no t l oo k t o po li ce re po rts inde te rm in in g wh ethe r a p rio r co nv ic ti on qu al ifi es as avi ol en t fel on y . ButMcC ray ne ve r adva nc edth is arg um en t i n h is in it ia l § 22 55 m ot io n or in hi s s ub se qu en t § 22 41 pe ti ti on (br ou gh t u nd er the § 2 25 5( e) s av in gs claus e), ev enth ou gh th e Supr em e Co urt d eci de d Sh ep ar d be fo re h e fi le d b ot h. Be cau se

“ th e sa vi ng s cl au se [of

§ 2 25 5] do es no t co ve r se nt en ce cl ai m s t ha t co ul d h av e be enrai se d i n e arl ie r pr oc eed in gs ,” su chas M cCra y ’s in it ia l § 22 55 m ot io n, McC ray’ s ar gu m en t b as edon Sh ep ar d was i m pr op er. Gil be rt , 64 0 F .3dat 1 31 9. W e th eref

or e d ecl in e to ad dr es s i t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal . Bec au se McC ray ha s n otest ab li sh edth atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g h is Ru le 59 an d 6 0( b) m ot io ns , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

7 Case: 12-11358 Date Filed: 10/02/2012 Page: 7 of 7