Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 862
Docket Number: No. 16-10348 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 862–863

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frederick Odhiambo OPIYO, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10348 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 11/21/2016
Frederick Odhiambo Opiyo, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Frederick 0. Opiyo, federal prisoner # 39194-039, appeals the district court's dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d) motion challenging the revocation of his supervised release which resulted in a sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Rule 60 does not provide a jurisdictional basis for relief from a criminal judgment. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (6th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Opiyo's motion may be deemed as a challenge to the result of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, it is a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Opiyo has not obtained authorization to file such a motion, which we would deny because his claims do not satisfy the standard for a successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Although the district court denied Opi-yo's motion on the merits, the district court should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Early, 27 F.3d at 142. We can, and therefore do, AFFIRM on the alternative basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the unauthorized motion. See id.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.