Court Opinion

ID: 2781199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-23 17:00:47.165829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:58:06.115751
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 14-2237
                       ___________________________

                                 Richard DeCaro

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

                                          v.

                            United States of America

                     lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee
                                     ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
              for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: February 18, 2015
                            Filed: February 23, 2015
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Federal inmate Richard DeCaro appeals the district court’s1 denial of his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion challenging his conviction and

      1
       The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
sentence. After careful review, we conclude that the motion amounted to an
unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)
(authorization requirement); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (Rule
60(b) motion that challenges defect in integrity of habeas proceeding is not
successive collateral attack, but motion that advances habeas claim is successive
petition); United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
(inmates cannot bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke
some other procedure). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-