United States v. Baker
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9184
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Baker, a federal prisoner, was convicted in 2006 of felon in possession of ammunition and was sentenced to 235 months.
- The jury acquitted him on a second count of possession of stolen ammunition.
- After unsuccessful direct appeals and denials of habeas petitions, Baker filed two unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 motions, which were denied.
- The district court later dismissed Baker’s motion labeled as Rule 60(d)(3)/Hazel-Atlas fraud-on-the-court as an unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 motion.
- Baker argued the motion sought relief based on fraud in his underlying criminal proceeding and invoked inherent power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
- The court of appeals denied a COA and dismissed, holding the filing was an unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 motion and not exempt from certification requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion is an unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 petition | Baker argues the motion is not a §2255 petition and is exempt. | District court properly treated it as an unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 motion. | Yes; it is an unauthorized second-or-successive §2255 motion. |
| Whether fraud-on-the-court claims can bypass §2255(h) certification | Fraud-on-the-court claims fall outside §2255(h) and are not barred. | Fraud-on-the-court claims are still subject to §2255(h) certification if they attack the underlying conviction. | No; such claims do not bypass certification and are treated as unauthorized second-or-successive attacks. |
| Whether labeling under Hazel-Atlas/Rule 60(d)(3) exempt the claim from the §2255 framework | Labeling claims under Hazel-Atlas/Savings Clause should exempt from §2255(h). | The relief sought controls; labeling does not exempt from §2255 defenses. | No; labeling does not exempt the claim from the §2255 framework. |
| Whether Berryhill/Spitznas/Nelson govern the disposition | The cases do not control because this is a Rule 60(d)(3) claim. | Berryhill controls; a fraud-on-the-court claim in a criminal case is a second-or-successive attack unless authorized. | Yes; Berryhill and related authorities compel dismissal for lack of authorization. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. United States, 465 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2006) (post-judgment motions asserting federal errors treated as second-or-successive if attacking conviction)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (fraud-on-the-court analysis; true 60(b) motion vs. collateral attack)
- Berryhill v. Evans, 466 F.3d 934 (10th Cir. 2006) (fraud-on-the-court claims in criminal proceeding are unauthorized second-or-successive attacks)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (S. Ct. 2005) (cannot evade §2255(h) by recasting petition as Rule 60(b) motion; substance controls)
- Torres v. United States, 282 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2002) (procedural labeling cannot circumvent restrictions on successive §2255 petitions)
- Melton v. United States, 359 F.3d 855 (7th Cir. 2004) (name of pleading cannot override substance for procedural restraints)