Court Opinion

ID: 9352507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 20:01:29.226381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:37.999055
License: Public Domain

CLD-029                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 22-2314
                                       ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                             KEVIN WILLIAM SMALL,
                                             Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
                      (D.C. Crim. Action No. 1-06-cr-00139-001)
                     District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
                      ____________________________________

                  Submitted on Appellee’s Motion for Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                  November 10, 2022

          Before: GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and MCKEE, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed: January 6, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION*
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
       Kevin William Small appeals pro se from an order of the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his motion for relief from

judgment. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance. For the

following reasons, we grant the Government’s motion and will summarily affirm the

District Court’s judgment.

       In April 2021, Small, who is serving a sentence in federal prison for filing false

tax returns, filed a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), based on his fear of exposure to COVID-19. (ECF 193.) The District

Court denied the motion. (ECF 196.) Small did not appeal. Instead, he filed a motion

for relief from judgment, citing “fraud on the court.” (ECF 197.) The District Court

denied that motion, noting that it attacked Small’s underlying conviction, not the denial

of his compassionate release motion.1 (ECF 204.) Small timely appealed.2 (ECF 205.)

       Small’s motion for relief from judgment sought to challenge his underlying federal

conviction. In particular, he alleged that the search warrants for his bank accounts were

illegal because they authorized searches in counties that were outside the issuing judge’s

1
  The District Court also denied Small’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF 199), a
motion to amend the caption of the motion for relief from judgment (ECF 200), a
renewed motion for relief from judgment (ECF 201), a motion for summary judgment
(ECF 202), and another motion for compassionate release (ECF 203).
2
 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The District Court appeared to treat
Small’s motion as independent action alleging fraud upon the court. We exercise de
novo review over the denial of such a motion. See Herring v. United States, 424 F.3d
384, 389-90 (3d Cir. 2005).
                                           2
jurisdiction.3 The District Court previously rejected that argument in its order denying

Small’s motion for a new trial. (ECF 166.) We likewise have held that Small’s argument

about the search warrants did not permit the filing of second or successive § 2255

motions. See, e.g., C.A. No. 20-2775. Small’s attempt to resurrect the argument was an

unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion that the District Court lacked

jurisdiction to consider. See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, the District Court properly rejected Small’s motion for relief from

judgment.

       In addition, the District Court did not err in denying Small’s other motions.

Because Small did not have authorization to bring the claims in the motion for relief from

judgment, the District Court did not err in denying his counsel motion. See Tabron v.

Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 1993). There was no merit to Small’s summary judgment

motion and renewed motion for relief from judgment, which simply repeated his

unauthorized challenge to his conviction. And there was no error in the District Court’s

refusal to permit Small to change the caption of the motion for relief from judgment.

Finally, the District Court correctly concluded that the use of allegedly illegal search

3
  In support of this argument, Small cited Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.,
322 U.S. 238 (1944). That case recognized “[t]he theory that a federal court has the
inherent power to vacate its own judgments when they have been procured by fraud.”
United States v. Washington, 549 F.3d 905, 912 (3d Cir. 2008). We have stated,
however, that “there is no long unquestioned power of federal district courts to vacate a
judgment procured by fraud in the criminal context.” Id. at 914 (cleaned up).
                                             3
warrants did not constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” basis for a sentence

reduction, as Small alleged in his new motion for compassionate release. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13, Application Notes 1(A)-(D) (listing four circumstances that may qualify as

extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction: an inmate’s medical

condition, the age of the defendant, family circumstances, and “other reasons”).

      For the foregoing reasons, we grant the Government’s motion for summary

affirmance and will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

                                            4