United States v. Ramos

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 12, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20781
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIO A. RAMOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-457-4
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julio A. Ramos, federal prisoner # 60283-004, filed a motion
under FED. R. CRIM. P. 41 seeking the return of property seized
pursuant to his arrest on criminal charges. The district court
denied the motion.
Ramos then filed a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief
from the judgment denying the motion for return of property, and he
subsequently sought moved for leave to amend or supplement his Rule
60(b)(3) motion. The district court, treating the latter as a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-20781
-2-
motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, denied the motion. The
district court also denied Ramos’s motion for clarification of its
ruling. This appeal follows.
Ramos argues that he was entitled to amend his Rule 60(b)(3)
motion. He also contends that the district court erred in
construing his motion for leave to amend or supplement as a motion
to vacate.
Because Ramos filed his motion for the return of property
after the completion of criminal proceedings, his motion should
have been treated as a civil action for the return of property
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Clymore v. United States, 217 F.3d
370, 373 (5th Cir. 2000). We agree with Ramos that the district
court erred in treating his motion for leave to amend or supplement
as a motion to vacate. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375,
383 (2003); Jones v. United States, 453 F.2d 351, 352 (5th Cir.
1972). Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order denying
Ramos’s motion for leave to amend or supplement and we likewise
VACATE the order denying his motion for clarification.
We note that the district court has not ruled on Ramos’s FED.
R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3) motion. We REMAND for further proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion. Ramos’s motion for leave to
supplement the record is DENIED. See Trinity Indus., Inc. v.
Martin, 963 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 1992).
VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.