United States v. Carlos Hernandes
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3245
5th Cir.2013Background
- Hernandes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine.
- Hernandes filed a §2255 motion alleging trial counsel conflict of interest due to third-party referral and partial payment by a co-defendant.
- The district court denied the §2255 motion for lack of showing a conflict of interest.
- Hernandes then moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6); the district court denied, finding no issue warranting a hearing.
- The district court and this court denied a COA, but this court granted a COA on whether the Rule 60(b) motion is a successive habeas petition.
- The panel concluded that the Rule 60(b) motion is an unauthorized, successive habeas petition and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 60(b)(6) motion is a successive §2255 petition | Hernandes argues the motion is procedural in nature | The motion attacks merits, not procedure | Yes; it is a successive petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (U.S. 2005) (distinguishes bona fide Rule 60(b) motions from those raising merits to be treated as successive petitions)
- United States v. Williams, 274 F. App’x 346 (5th Cir. 2008) (applies Gonzalez to §2255 motions)
- In re Lindsey, 582 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2009) (Rule 60(b) motion can be a merits-based petition, not just procedural)
- Washington v. United States, 653 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 60(b) motion treated as habeas petition in disguise)
- United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773 (5th Cir. 2000) (one-motion rule for §2255 limits on successive petitions)