Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vincent WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-15
Citations: 274 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 07-30640
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vincent WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vincent WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-30640
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 15, 2008.
Maurice Landrieu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Vincent Williams, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Williams, federal prisoner #27040-034, appeals the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from a criminal order of forfeiture. Williams argues that his Rule 60(b)(4) motion was proper because he was raising a jurisdictional challenge to his conviction.
This court reviews a district court's ruling on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion de novo. Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir.1998). Rule 60(b) provides relief from judgment in civil cases, not in criminal cases. See United States v. O'Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir.1999). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Williams's Rule 60(b) motion. Moreover, to the extent that Williams's Rule 60(b) motion was a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Williams had not obtained the requisite authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-31, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir.1998); Fier-ro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.