Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas FINLEY, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-23
Citations: 241 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 06-3426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas FINLEY, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 241
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Thomas FINLEY, Appellant.
No. 06-3426.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 18, 2007.
Filed: July 23, 2007.
David M. Rosen, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.
Thomas Finley, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Finley appeals the district court's order denying his motion for review of his 216-month prison sentence, imposed in 1998 following his murder-for-hire convictions. See United States v. Finley, 175 F.3d 645, 646-47 (8th Cir. 1999). Finley's motion, which he characterized as an "appeal of an otherwise final sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 8742(a)(1) & (2)," was actually a successive and untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, filed without authorization. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for successive § 2255 motions by purporting to invoke some other procedure); United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (8th Cir.1993) (noting § 3742 concerns basis for appellate review of district court's sentencing decisions; it does not grant jurisdiction to district court to review final sentence). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.