United States v. Garza, 1:12-cr-00088

Defendant Pedro Garza filed three post-judgment motions: (1) Motion to Amend Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (ECF No. 183); (2) Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 184); and (3) Motion for Vacatur under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF No. 185).
The 59(e) filing is substantively identical to an earlier § 2255 habeas motion Garza previously withdrew; the only change was a handwritten request to revise his sentence under § 3553(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and governing Seventh Circuit precedent, a second or successive § 2255 motion requires prior authorization from the court of appeals; Garza had not obtained such certification.
Garza sought vacatur under Rule 60(b)(1) of the court’s order permitting withdrawal of his earlier § 2255 motion, claiming he never received the April 2017 order and did not intend to withdraw; his 60(b) motion was filed nearly four years after that order.
Garza moved for appointed counsel citing limited law-library access due to COVID-19 lockdowns but provided no factual detail on how access was impaired.
The court dismissed the 59(e) motion for lack of jurisdiction (successive § 2255), denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely, and denied appointment of counsel without prejudice; it also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 59(e) filing is a second/successive § 2255 motion requiring appellate authorization	The filing is effectively a successive § 2255 and thus barred without court-of-appeals certification	Garza asks amendment of judgment and resentencing under § 3553(a)	Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as a successive § 2255 (no appellate authorization)
Whether Garza's Rule 60(b) motion is timely	Motion is untimely; Rule 60(b)(1) requires relief within one year	Garza says he never received the April 2017 order and seeks vacatur to amend his § 2255 motion	Court: Denied as untimely (filed ~4 years after the order)
Whether counsel should be appointed because of COVID-19 law-library restrictions	Court requires factual showing of impaired access before appointing counsel	Garza asserts lockdown/modified operations justify counsel but gives no specifics	Court: Denied without prejudice for lack of factual showing; also unnecessary given 59(e) dismissal
Whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA)	Procedural bar is plain; COA should be denied	Garza would seek appealability	Court: No COA issued because reasonable jurists could not debate dismissal on procedural grounds

Holt v. United States, 843 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2016) (Section 2255(h) permits court-of-appeals authorization for successive habeas motions)
Vitrano v. United States, 643 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior § 2255 filings can count as a first motion even if not adjudicated on the merits)
Felder v. McVicar, 113 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 1997) (procedural treatment of prior habeas filings for AEDPA purposes)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability when procedural bars resolve petition)
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) (COA standards and "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further" language)