United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 13, 2015*

Decided March 25, 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RUFUS SIMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 92 CR 166

Harry D. Leinenweber,

Judge.

* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel pursuant to 

Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded 

that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and 

record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

 
No. 14-3149 Page 2

O R D E R

Rufus Sims was convicted on money laundering charges and sentenced to 327 

months in prison in December 1995. On appeal, this court affirmed both the conviction 

and the sentence. United States v. Sims, 144 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir. 1998). Sims sought 

post-conviction relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 1999, but the district court denied 

his motion, United States v. Sims, 71 F. Supp. 2d 874 (N.D. Ill. 1999), and this court denied 

Sims’s request for a certificate of appealability. 

Since that time, Sims has filed three more motions in the district court, all in an 

effort to mount a collateral attack on his conviction and sentence. See United States v. 

Sims, No. 02-2397 (7th Cir. July 1, 2003) (motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b)); United States v. Sims, No. 08-3837 (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009) (motions under Rule 60(b) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). During the same period, Sims also filed three petitions for writs 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, each in a different judicial district; none 

was successful. See Sims v. Conley, No. 06-55970 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2006); Sims v. Purdue, 

No. 12-3280 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013); Sims v. Holland, No. 12 CV 155, 2013 WL 1628241 

(E.D. Ky. April 15, 2013) (denying Sims’s motion as an abuse of the writ). Undeterred by 

this track record, he then filed a purported motion in the original criminal action, case 

92 CR 166. Sims asserted that he was entitled to invoke the version of Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 35(a) that was in effect prior to November 1, 1987. He later filed a 

“Motion to Expand” his supposed Rule 35(a) motion.

We need not tarry on the merits of Sims’s new effort to attack his 1995 conviction 

and sentence. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Sims’s latest 

motions, because they were effectively unauthorized successive motions under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 for which Sims had failed to obtain permission to file from this court, as required 

by § 2255(h). The district court was correct. We have long held that “any post-judgment 

motion in a criminal proceeding that fits the description of § 2255 ¶ 1 is a motion under 

§ 2255, and that the second (and all subsequent) of these requires appellate approval.” 

United States v. Evans, 224 F.3d 670, 672 (7th Cir. 2000). Sims’s current motion, which 

seeks to challenge the district court’s finding long ago that his offense conduct continued 

after the effective date of the Sentencing Guidelines, is just such a motion. We add for the 

sake of economy that nothing Sims has presented in this latest round meets the criteria 

found in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) for authorization of a successive motion. We therefore 

decline to construe Sims’s notice of appeal as a belated request for authorization to file 

this action. 
No. 14-3149 Page 3

The district court’s judgment, which was on the merits, is modified to show that 

the dismissal is for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In all other respects, we AFFIRM the 

dismissal of Sims’s case, and we warn him that he courts sanctions if he persists in these 

meritless filings.