Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Timothy C Washington, 06-1476 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 06-1476 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-1476 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Timothy C. Washington, etc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: December 27, 2006 Filed: January 10, 2007 _ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Timothy Washington appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging
More
                    United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                   No. 06-1476
                                   ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * District of Nebraska.
Timothy C. Washington, etc.,            *
                                        * [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: December 27, 2006
                                Filed: January 10, 2007
                                 ___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Timothy Washington appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 2001 order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255
relief. As the district court concluded--and contrary to Washington’s position--his
motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion filed without authorization.
Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 
125 S. Ct. 2641
, 2647-48 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should
not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous
resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 
309 F.3d 1093
,

      1
      The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement
of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, dismissal was proper.
See Boyd v. United States, 
304 F.3d 813
, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                       ______________________________




                                        -2-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer