FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MARCH 31, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1537 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 0- 06 28 4- CR-J AL DAVID I. ALT MAN, 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.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 31, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BA RKE T T a nd P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D av id I
. A ltm an , af

orm er f ed er al pr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 60( b) (4 ) m oti on f or r el ie f fr om

his2

crim inal judgm ent. Altm an wa s sentenced to 87 m onth s im prisonm ent and three y ears of sup er vis ed r el ea se f

or kno w ing ly

tr an spor ti ng and s hip pin g c hil d pornog raphy

in interstate and foreign com m erce by com puter. O n ap peal, Altm an arg ue s that

the te rm “ vis ua l de pic tio ns, ” as use d inhis statut e of c onvi ct ion , 18 U
. S. C. § 22 52A (a )( 1) , is uncons tit uti ona lly a m big uous be ca

use it c anr ef er to both por nograph ythat i lle ga lly

sho w s a ct

ua l c hil dr ena nd p or

nogr ap hy that pe rm iss ibl y
use s im ag es that on ly

appe ar to be c hil dr en . A lte rn at ive ly , he ar gue s that if r el ie f is not a va ila ble und er F ed
. R. Ci v. P
. 60( b) (4 ), thi s Co urt shou ld a ddr es s th e m er its of hi s cl ai m un de r th e p la in erro r st an da rdof r ev ie w. W e ge ne ra lly

r ev ie wthe de nia l of a Ru le 60( b) m oti on f or abuse of dis cr et ion
. Burk e v. S m ith , 252 F
. 3d 1 260, 126 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1)
. H ow ev er , w e re vie w de nov o
a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ng o n a Ru le 60( b) (4 ) m oti on t o se t a sid e a j udgm en t a s vo id. I d. T he F ed er al Ru le s of Ci vil Pr oc ed ur e “ gove rn the pr oc ed

ur e in al l c ivi l a ct ion s
an d pr oc ee din gs i n th e U nit ed S ta te s di str ic t c ourts. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 1. Ru le 60( b) pr ovide s th at

“ the c ourt m ay

r el ie ve aparty

. . . f ro m af ina l j udgm en t, or de r, or pr oc ee din g . . . [ if

] the j udgm en t i s vo id. ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) (4 ). H ow ev er , Ru le 60( b) doe s no t prov ide fo r re lie f fr om j udgm en t in ac ri m ina l c as e. U nit ed S ta te s v. Fa ir , 326 F
. 3d 1 317, 1318 (1 1th Ci r. 2003 ); U nit ed S ta te s v. Mo sa vi, 138 F
. 3d 1 365, 1366 (11th C ir. 1998 ). In som e lim ited circum stances, Rule 60(b) can provide reliefWe n ote that A ltm an w a s r e le a se d f ro m pr iso n whil e thi s a

pp e a l w a s p e nd ing . A ltm an is 1 curr ently under supe rvised re lease , which would likely meet the “ in custody ” re quirement of § 2255. United States v. Br own, 117 F.3d 471, 475 ( 11th Cir. 1997). 3 fr om a n e ar lie r de nia l of

a§ 22 55 p et iti on. S ee G onz al ez v. Cr os by , 545 U
. S. 524 , 533- 36, 125 S
. Ct
. 264 1, 2 648-50 ( 2005 ). I n othe r ci rc um stanc es , aRu le 60( b)
m otion is t re at ed as a second or successive habeas corpus petition , and is th eref ore subj ec tt o th e p r o c e du r a l r e qu i r e m e n t s o f th e A n t i t e rr o r i s m

a n dE f f e c t i v e D e a th Pe na lty A ct of 199 6, P ub. L
. N o. 104 -3 2, 110 S ta t. 121 4 ( 1996 ). S ee F el ke r v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657 , 661 (11th Cir. 1996). H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not er r in d en y ing A ltm an ’ s R

ule 60( b) m oti on t o void his cr im inal j udgm ent because such r elief is not available underRu l e 6 0 (b ). Construin g the m otion as a successive habeas petition does not afford A ltm an relief ei the r. A ltm anf

ile d hi s R ule 60( b) m ot ion af

te r the de nia l of

his § 22 55 p et iti on. 1 A ltm an ’ s su

bse que nt m oti on f

or ac er tif ic at e of appe al ab ili ty

w as a lso denie d. Ther efore, Altm an has not fulfilled th e procedural r equire m en t s n ecessar y for a
suc ce ssi ve ha

be as pe tit ionto pr oc ee d. S ee 28 U
. S. C. § 22 44( b) (3 )( A ) (2 006) ; F ar ri s v. U nited States, 333 F. 3d 12 11, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003 ) (a ffirm ing di strict court denial of aRu le 60( b) m oti on c onstru ed a s a suc ce ssi ve § 2255 m oti on whe n th e de fe ndant ha d no t r ec ei ve d auth or iz at ionto fi le a suc ce ssi ve ha be as pe tit ion ). F ina lly , be ca use
a Ru le 60( b) m oti on is not the pr ope r m oti on b y w hic h to a tta ck

ac ri m ina l j udgm en t,4

w e de cl ine to ad dr es s th e m er its of A ltm an ’ s c la im und er the pla in e rr or

standard of
re vie w . A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIRMED.