United States v. Luis Frias ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40604 Document: 00515323442 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 19-40604
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 27, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS RANGEL FRIAS, also known as Mario Pedraza,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-315-11
Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Luis Rangel Frias, federal prisoner # 14131-078, appeals the district
court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) motion for relief
from the 2007 judgment convicting him of, and sentencing him for, conspiracy
to possess with the intent to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine
and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He
argues that the district court erred in determining that Rule 60(d)(3) did not
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40604 Document: 00515323442 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 19-40604
apply in criminal proceedings and in failing to take into consideration his
allegations of fraud on the court based on impermissible misrepresentations
by law enforcement in the warrant affidavit, which he contends resulted in his
involuntary guilty plea.
Rule 60 does not apply in criminal proceedings. See United States v.
O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999); FED. R. CIV. P. 1. Thus, the district
court did not err in denying Frias’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion on this basis.
Moreover, because Frias’s Rule 60(d)(3) motion sought vacatur of his criminal
judgment on the same underlying basis that he unsuccessfully alleged in his
prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the motion was properly construed as an
unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, which the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); § 2255(h); Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774
(5th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. See Sojourner
T v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992).
2