Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Darius Moss, 05-2700 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 05-2700 Visitors: 62
Filed: Apr. 06, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-2700 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Darius M. Moss, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * _ Submitted: March 21, 2006 Filed: April 6, 2006 _ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Darius Moss appeals the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 1999 order denying his 28
More
                     United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                     ___________

                                     No. 05-2700
                                     ___________

United States of America,                 *
                                          *
             Appellee,                    *
                                          * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                  * District Court for the
                                          * District of Nebraska.
Darius M. Moss,                           *
                                          *      [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                   *
                                     ___________

                              Submitted: March 21, 2006
                                 Filed: April 6, 2006
                                  ___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

       Darius Moss appeals the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 1999 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion; he also appeals the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
motion. Moss’s motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion. 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
, 1094 (8th

      1
        The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255
by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, we deny a certificate of
appealability (COA), see United States v. Lambros, 
404 F.3d 1034
, 1036 (8th Cir.)
(per curiam) (COA is required to appeal denial of any motion that ultimately seeks
habeas relief), cert. denied, 
125 S. Ct. 2953
(2005), and dismiss this appeal.
                         ______________________________




                                        -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