Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60138 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. H A R O L D W . R O B E R T S , J R . D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 4: 00- C R
- 14- 1 B ef ore G A R W O O D , SM ITH an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * H ar o l d W . Rob e r t s , J r . , fe de r alpr i s o ne r# 089 01
- 05 5, w as co nvi c t e d of o ne c ountof pos se ss i ng m ar ij uana w i t h i nt entt o di st ri b u t e a nd i n A pril2001 w as s e nt e n c e d t o s e r v e 1 2 0 m o n t h s i n p r i s o n . W e a f f i r m e d t h e j u d g m e n t o f t he d is t r ic tc o u r tin A u g u s t2 0 0 2 . I n F e b r u a r y2 0 0 4 t h is c o u r td e n ie dR o b e r t s ’s r e q u e s t t o file a s u c c e s s iv e s e c tio n 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60138 Document: 00511005417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2010N o. 09- 60138

2 T h e di st ri ctcourtl aterden i ed the pu rport ed F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) m ot i on t h at R obert s f

i l ed i n Ju l y 200 8 to cha l l en ge h i s s en t en ce, an d R obert s now a p p ea l s th a t d en i a l . H e i n sist s th a t h e w a s i m p rop erly sen ten ced b a sed on bo th t he m ar ij uana and t he c r ac k c oc ai ne t hatw as i nvolved w i t h hi s of fens e a nd t hat he s ho ul d b e r e s e nt e nc e d. R u le 6 0 (b ) p r o v id e s re lie f o n ly fr o m ju d g m e n ts im p o s e din civ il ca s e s ; R u le 6 0 (b) “si m p l y d oe s n ot p rov i d e reli ef f rom a jud gm en t i n a crim i n a lca se.” Un i t ed S ta tes v . O ’

K eefe , 1 69 F . 3d 2 81, 2 89 ( 5th C i r. 199 9) (D en n i s, J. , di ssenti n g f rom g r a n t o f m o tio n fo rte m p o r a r ys ta yp e n d in ga p p e a l); seealso F ED . R. C IV . P. 1 (l i m i t i ng t he s c ope of t he r ul es of

c ivi lpr oc edur e t o c ivi lac t i ons ) . A c c or di ngl y, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r rin co n c lu d in gth a t R o b e r ts co u ldn o t in v o k e R u le 6 0 (b ) to ch a lle n g e h is s e n te n c e . R obert s’ s R u l e 60(b) m ot i on i s b e st con st rued as an u n au t h ori zed su cces sive 2 8 U . S . C . § 22 5 5 m oti on tha t th e d i stri ct cou rt l a ck ed j u ri sd i cti on to c o n s id e r . S ee G onz ale z v. C r os by , 5 4 5 U. S . 5 2 4 , 5 2 9
- 3 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ; 2 8 U. S . C. § 22 44 (b) ( 3) (A) , § 2 25 5(h) . Bec aus e t hi s a ppe ali s pa t e nt l y f r ivo l o us , w e de c l i ne to rem a n d this case to t h e d i stri ct cou rt f or a de c is io n o n w h eth er a certi fi ca te of a p p e a l abil i t y shou l d i ssue an d i n st ead D ISM ISS t h i s app ealf or l ack of ju r is d ic tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l varez , 2 1 0 F .3d 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Case: 09-60138 Document: 00511005417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2010