Court Opinion

ID: 9838229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 19:02:12.903588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:59.328227
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13527      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023    Page: 1 of 3

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                      In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                   No. 22-13527
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       THEODORE VAZQUEZ,
                                                                  Petitioner,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                               Respondent.

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Theodore Vazquez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap-
       peals the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion as an
USCA11 Case: 22-13527      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10968

       unauthorized second or successive motion to vacate under 28
       U.S.C. § 2255. Following a review of the record and the parties’
       briefs, we aﬃrm.
               In 2019, Mr. Vazquez ﬁled a § 2255 motion to vacate alleging
       that his counsel had rendered ineﬀective assistance by failing to ob-
       ject to the use of his 1999 Florida narcotics conviction as a predicate
       oﬀense for enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
       The district court denied his § 2255 motion, concluding that Mr.
       Vazquez was subject to an ACCA-enhanced sentence because of a
       2011 Florida conviction for traﬃcking of cocaine. See Fla. Stat. §
       893.135. As a result, even if counsel had objected to the use of the
       1999 conviction, the 2011 conviction would have suﬃced to sen-
       tence Mr. Vazquez under the ACCA. In other words, Mr. Vazquez
       could not show prejudice. See D.E. 15 at 5-7.
              Mr. Vazquez then ﬁled a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, arguing that
       the district court’s reliance on the 2011 conviction for its lack-of-
       prejudice determination was erroneous. The district court dis-
       missed the motion, reasoning that it attacked the prior resolution
       of the § 2255 motion on the merits and was therefore an unauthor-
       ized second or successive motion to vacate.
              We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that Mr.
       Vazquez’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion was an unauthorized second or
       successive § 2255 motion. See Ferris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211,
       1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Exercising plenary review, we conclude that
       the district court’s ruling was correct.
USCA11 Case: 22-13527      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-10968               Opinion of the Court                          3

              A Rule 60(b)(6) motion is an impermissibly second or suc-
       cessive § 2255 motion to vacate if, among other things, it “attacks
       the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits, since
       alleging that the [c]ourt erred in denying habeas [or § 2255] relief
       on the merits is eﬀectively indistinguishable from alleging that the
       movant is, under the substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled
       to habeas [or § 2255] relief.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532
       (2005) (footnote omitted). Here the Rule 60(b)(6) motion chal-
       lenged the district court’s merits resolution of Mr. Vazquez’s § 2255
       motion. As a result, it was an unauthorized second or successive §
       2255 motion.
              AFFIRMED.