Judges: Per Curiam
Filed: Dec. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 6, 2007 Decided December 19, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 07-2495 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern v. Division. EDWA
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted December 6, 2007 Decided December 19, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge No. 07-2495 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern v. Division. EDWAR..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 6, 2007
Decided December 19, 2007
Before
Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 07-2495
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellee, District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern
v. Division.
EDWARD WILLIAMS, No. 89 CR 908
Defendant-Appellant.
James B. Zagel, Judge.
ORDER
The appellant was convicted on drug and related charges and sentenced to
life imprisonment in 1992. The conviction and sentence were eventually affirmed by
this court in 1997 in an unpublished opinion
1997 WL 303359. He later filed a mo-
tion under 28 U.S.C. section 2255 to vacate the judgment. It was dismissed as be-
ing an unauthorized second section 2255 motion after an earlier motion of his under
Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 was recharacterized as a section 2255 motion. In 2006 he filed a
third collateral attack, this one denominated as a request for relief under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651. The district court denied relief, and this appeal
followed. We affirm. Like the earlier Rule 33 motion, the motion under section 1651
is functionally a section 2255 motion. Nomenclature is irrelevant. A convicted de-
fendant cannot evade the limitation on successive such motions by calling a motion
by a different name. E.g., United States v. Scott,
414 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.