Filed: Aug. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41384 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE HAVEN BEADLES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:92-CR-49-2 - - - - - - - - - - August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Haven Beadles, Texas prisoner # 04049-078, appeals the district court’s denial of th
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-41384 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE HAVEN BEADLES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:92-CR-49-2 - - - - - - - - - - August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joe Haven Beadles, Texas prisoner # 04049-078, appeals the district court’s denial of the..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-41384
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOE HAVEN BEADLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:92-CR-49-2
- - - - - - - - - -
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Haven Beadles, Texas prisoner # 04049-078, appeals the
district court’s denial of the motion he filed citing FED.
R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4). The district court construed the motion as
an attempt to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and
denied it for failure to obtain our permission to file a
successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-41384
-2-
Because Beadles is attempting to challenge his criminal
conviction directly, FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4), which applies only
to civil judgments, is inapplicable. Therefore, the district
court did not err in construing his motion as a successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying it for failure to comply with 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Cf. United States v. Rich,
141 F.3d 550,
551-53 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.