FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 15, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U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- 10 95 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :9 5- cr-0 03 17 -RAL-1 STEVEN J. SMITH, 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 forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 15 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: St ev enJ. Sm it h, a f

ed eral pri so ne r, ap pe al s t hr ou gh co un se l the de ni al of am ot io n h e fi le d p ur su an t t o F ed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b )(4 ), bu t tha t the di st ric t co urt

co ns tru edas am ot io n t o v acat e, se t as id e, orco rrec t h is sen te nc e u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. We gran te d S m it h acert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y (“ COA”) o n t he fol lo win g two is su es : “ (1 ) Whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g P et it io ne r’s Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 0( b) m ot io n,” an d “ (2 ) Whe th er Pe ti ti on er h as an y ot he r po st -co nv ic ti on rem edy

av ai labl e to hi m

whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id eredwith re sp ectto th e m eri ts of h is cla im .” 1

I. Rule 60 (b)( 4) Mot io n Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Burke v. S mith , 25 2 F .3d12 60 , 12 63 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Howev er, we rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on a Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) m ot io n t o se t as id e a jud gm en t as vo id . Id
. W e al so rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co urt’s di sm is sa l o f a § 22 55 m ot io n a s s eco ndor s uc ces si ve . Goo de n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 62 7 F .3d84 6, 8 47 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ).

The g overnme nt submit s that we should vac ate the COA as improvidently 1 grante d. “Onc e the pa

rties have briefe d and argued the issue se t out in a COA and we have rea ched the point of consideringan appe al on the merits, the tim e for scrutinizing the COA ha s long sinc e passe d.” Thomas v. Crosby , 371 F.3d 782, 784 ( 11th Cir. 2004). We decline to enter tain the g overnme nt’s challeng e to the COA at this st ag e in the matter . 2Ru le 60 (b ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e p erm it s a c ou rt t o re li ev e a p arty fro m a “ fin al jud gm en t, o rd er, o r pr oc eed in g” forvario us reas on s, in cl ud in g wh en“ th e jud gm en t i s v oi d.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b )(4 ). A m ot io n fi le d pu rs ua ntto Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) m us t b e m ad e “ withi n areas on ab le ti m e.” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (c)( 1) . The Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e “ go ve rnth e p ro cedur e in all civ il act io ns an d p ro ceed in gs in th e Uni te d S ta te s d is tri ctco urts , exc ep t as st at edin Ru le 81 .” Fed .R.Ci v.P . 1. Acco rd in gl y , we hav e h el d t ha t Ru le 60 (b ) can no t b e us edto ob ta in rel ie f in cri m in al pro ceed in gs . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Mo sa vi , 13 8 F.3 d 1 36 5, 1 36 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . In Mos av i , we hel d t ha t the de fen da ntco ul d n ot ch al le ng e a cri m in al for fei tu re o rd er u si ng a Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ) m ot io n b ecau se Fed .R.Ci v.P . 1 u na m

bi gu ou sl y pro vi de s t ha t the Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e go ve rnth e p ro cedur e in all su it s o f a ci vi l n atur e. Id
. W e st at ed , The jud gm en t an d o rd er tha t the de fen da ntco nt es ts were en te red , no t in a ci vi l ca se , bu t i n acri m in al cas e, an d apro pe r ap pe al of t he fo rfei tu res sh ou ldha ve be enrai se d i n t he de fen da nt ’s cri m in al ap pe al of hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e. Ru le 60 (b ) si m pl y do es no t p ro vi de fo r rel ie f fro m

jud gm en t i n acri m in al cas e. Id
. ; see al so Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa ir , 32 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (h ol di ng th atRu le 60 (b )(4 ) co ul d n otbe us edto att ackan y all eg edde fic ie nc ie s i n t he

3di st ric t co urt’s o rd er d en y in g F ai r’s 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ) m ot io n b ecau se § 3 58 2

is “ cri m in al in na ture”) . The Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctpro vi de s t ha t, t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n, a m ov an t m us t fi rs t re cei ve anord er fro m th e U.S. Cou rt o f App eal s au th or iz in g t he di stric t co urt t o c on si de r it . Far ris v. Uni te d Sta tes , 33 3 F .3d12 11 , 12 16 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 (h ).

“ W it ho utau th or iz at io n, the di stric t co urt l ack s ju ris di ct io n t o c on si de r a s eco ndor su cces si ve pe ti ti on .” Far ris , 33 3 F .3dat 1 21 6. In Gon za le

z v. C ro sb y , th e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t: a Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) m ot io n i n a§ 2 25 4 c as e is no t t o b e tr eat edas a su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on if i t d oe s n otass ert , or re as se rt, c la im s o f erro r in th e m ov an t’s s ta te co nv ic ti on . A m ot io n t ha t, l ik e pe ti ti on er’s, ch al le ng es on ly the Dis tri ctCo urt’s fa il ur e to reac h t he m eri ts do es no t warran t s uc h t reat m en t, an d c anth eref or e b e ru le d up on by the Dis tri ctCo urt wi th ou t p rece rti fic at io n b y th e Co urt o f App eal s p ur su an t t o § 22 44 (b )(3 ). 54 5 U.S. 5 24 , 53 8, 1 25 S. Ct. 2 64 1, 2 65 1 (2 00 5) . Alth ou gh th e Supr em e Co urt ex pr es sl y no te d t ha t i t was li m it in g i ts co ns id erat io n t o § 22 54 cas es , id
. at 5 29 n.3 , 12 5 S . Ct. at26 46 n.3 , we recen tl y he ldth at“ th e st an da rdan no un cedin Gon za le zap pl ie s t o fe de ral pri so ne r cas es as we ll ,” Gil be rt v. Uni te d Sta tes , No. 09 -1 25 13 , m anus cri ptop . at 6 9 (1 1t h C ir. M ay 19 , 20 11 ) ( en ba nc ). In Gil be rt , we reject edth e ap pe ll an t’s ar gu m en t t ha t a m ot io n h e fi le d a ss ert in g a n e rro r of law i n 4th e cal cu la ti on of h is sen te nc e sh ou ldha ve be entre at edas o ne fil edun de r Ru le

60 (b )(5 ) an d (6 ), ho ld in g t ha t “ [b ]ecaus e Gil be rt’s m ot io n s ou gh t t o a ss ertor reas se rt acla im

forrel ie f, in st eadof p oi nt in g o uta de fectin th e in te gr ity of t he earl ie r § 2 25 5 m ot io n p ro ceed in g i n h is cas e, un de r Gon za le zhi 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 a ndis ba rredby § 22 55 (h ).” Gilbe rt , No. 0 9- 12 51 3, m anus cri ptop . at 1 7- 18 , 68 -6 9. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g S m it h re li ef u nd er Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b )(4 ) be cau se th atrul e o f ci vi l p ro cedur e co ul d n otbe us edto att ackSm it h’s cri m in al jud gm en t, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g h is m ot io n, co ns tru edas a§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, b ecau se itwas an u naut ho riz edsec on d o r su cces si ve § 2 25 5 m ot io n. II . Othe r Rel ie f Ru le 60 (b ) al so en ab le s a c ou rt t o re li ev e a p arty fro m a fi na l ju dg m en t, or de r, orpro ceed in g i f: “ (5 ) th e jud gm en t h as be ensat is fie d, re le as edor di sc ha rg ed ; i t i s b as edon anearl ie r jud gm en t tha t h as be enrev ers edor v acat ed ; o r ap pl y in g i t p ro sp ect iv el y

is no lo ng er equi tabl e; or ( 6) [fo r] any ot he r rea so n t ha t jus ti fie s re li ef.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 60 (b )(5 ) an d (6 ). On ap pe al , Sm it h i de nt ifi es on ly Rul e 6 0( b) (5 ) an d (6 ) as th e o th er po st -co nv ic ti on rem ed ie s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id ered . Howev er, 5as di sc us se d abo ve , Rul e 6 0( b) is a ru le of c iv il pro cedur e th atcan no t b e u se d t o

at ta ck a jud gm en t i n acri m in al cas e. Ther efo re, Sm it h h as no t s ho wn t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin fai li ng to co ns id er wh ethe r hi s cl ai m was c og ni zab le un de r Ru le 60 (b )(5 ) or(6) . Bas edon ou r rev ie w of the reco rdan d c on si de rat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f Sm it h’s m ot io n. AFFIRMED. 2

Smit h’s re quest for or al ar gument is denied. 2 6