Case Information
*1 Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and BACHARACH , Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Tramaine Beadles, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. Because this motion was actually an unauthorized second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
I
After receiving an anonymous tip that Beadles had robbed a bank in Topeka, Kansas, FBI agents conducted an interview of Beadles in which he confessed after *2 signing a waiver of his Miranda rights. Beadles repeated his confession when testifying at trial. He claimed that he was coerced into participating in the robbery through threats of violence to himself and his wife. A jury convicted Beadles of bank robbery and he was sentenced to 210 months’ imprisonment.
Prior to sentencing, Beadles filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, which the district court denied. We affirmed Beadles’ sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Beadles, 508 F. App’x 807, 814 (10th Cir. 2013). He then filed a § 2255 motion in the district court, which was also denied.
The instant appeal concerns a second Rule 33 motion filed by Beadles following the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Beadles claims the government violated his due process rights because it could not produce phone records of the anonymous tip. He requested that the court vacate his conviction. The district court denied the motion, concluding Beadles offered only speculative and conclusory claims of new evidence, which he claimed to have learned about from counsel prior to his initial Rule 33 motion. After Beadles appealed, the government filed a motion for remand, asserting that Beadles’ Rule 33 motion was actually a second or successive § 2255 motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction as Beadles failed to receive authorization under § 2255(h).
II
A district court has jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive
§ 2255 motion only if the defendant first obtains authorization from a circuit court.
*3
In re Lindsey,
In his second motion for a new trial, Beadles seeks release from prison on the
ground that his conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution. He does not
allege any newly discovered evidence that would justify a new trial, and admitted
that the information forming the basis of his motion was disclosed to him prior to
sentencing. We thus conclude his motion was actually an unauthorized second or
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Evans,
To the extent Beadles attempts to pursue a fraud upon the court theory, our
conclusion remains the same. “[A] motion alleging fraud on the court in the
defendant’s criminal proceeding must be considered a second-or-successive collateral
attack because it asserts or reasserts a challenge to the defendant’s underlying
conviction.” United States v. Baker,
III
We GRANT the government’s motion to remand. [1] The district court’s order is VACATED . We REMAND with instructions to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
Notes
[*] After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
[1] In his response to the government’s motion, Beadles requests a stay of these proceedings. We deny that request.