United States v. Charles Anthony Giovinco
670 F. App'x 688
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2009 Charles Giovinco, a pro se federal prisoner, was sentenced to 235 months for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (using the internet to entice a minor). He did not appeal or file a § 2255 motion.
- In 2014 Giovinco filed a pro se motion in his criminal case styled as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking relief from the final criminal judgment and asserted actual innocence.
- Giovinco acknowledged he might later file a § 2255 motion but insisted the current filing was properly brought under Rule 60(b).
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion; the court below did not recharacterize the motion as a § 2255 motion and therefore did not give Castro warnings.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and considered whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b) may be used to attack a criminal conviction/sentence | Giovinco contended his motion under Rule 60(b) properly sought relief from the final judgment and asserted actual innocence | Rule 60(b) governs civil procedures only and cannot be used to challenge criminal convictions; such challenges must proceed under § 2255 | Rule 60(b) is not a proper vehicle to attack a criminal conviction; denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court erred by not recharacterizing the Rule 60(b) motion as a § 2255 motion without Castro warnings | Giovinco explicitly labeled the motion as Rule 60(b) and disclaimed a § 2255 filing | Recharacterization requires Castro warnings; but because Rule 60(b) is inapplicable, the district court was not required to convert the motion | No error: district court properly denied the Rule 60(b) motion and did not have to recharacterize it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365 (11th Cir. 1998) (Rule 60(b) cannot be used to challenge criminal forfeitures or circumvent § 2255)
- United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622 (11th Cir. 1990) (courts must look beyond labels of pro se filings to their true character)
- Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003) (requirements for recharacterizing pro se filings as § 2255 motions and required warnings)
- Jackson v. Crosby, 437 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denials is abuse of discretion)
- Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review for subject-matter jurisdiction over Rule 60(b) motions)