Court Opinion

ID: 9385447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-06 18:00:47.508925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:01.959707
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30415         Document: 00516702873             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/06/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-30415                                   April 6, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Karl David Kretser, Jr.,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 2:06-CR-20062-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          In 2007, Karl David Kretser, Jr., federal prisoner # 13308-035, was
   convicted by a jury of using a facility in interstate commerce to attempt to
   coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual acts. More than 14 years later, in
   2022, Kretser filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered
   evidence, invoking Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. The district court

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30415      Document: 00516702873           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/06/2023

                                     No. 22-30415

   denied the motion because it was not filed within three years after the verdict
   or finding of guilty and thus was prohibited under Rule 33(b)(1). Kretser now
   appeals.
          Because the Government argued in the district court that Kretser’s
   motion was untimely under Rule 33(b)(1), the denial of the motion on that
   basis was mandatory. See Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19 (2005).
   Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kretser’s
   motion for a new trial. See United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398, 405 (5th
   Cir. 2009).
          Kretser asserts the district court erred because it did not liberally
   construe his motion as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)
   motion or a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. However, the rules of civil
   procedure do not provide for relief in criminal proceedings. See Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 1; Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4); Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a). To the
   extent the motion sought relief under Rule 59 or Rule 60(b), it was “a
   meaningless, unauthorized motion” that the district court lacked jurisdiction
   to consider. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994).
          In addition, if the district court had construed Kretser’s motion as a
   successive § 2255 motion, he would not have been entitled to relief. The
   motion raised a claim based on a defect that existed at the time Kretser filed
   his initial § 2255 motion challenging this conviction, even if the defect was
   not previously discoverable. See Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214,
   220 22 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus, his motion would have been considered
   successive. See id. Because Kretser did not obtain this court’s authorization
   to file a successive § 2255 motion, see § 2255(h); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A),
   the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it. See United States v.
   Fulton, 780 F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 2015).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              2