DocketNumber: 06-1476
Citation Numbers: 211 F. App'x 550
Filed Date: 1/10/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-1476 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Timothy C. Washington, etc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: December 27, 2006 Filed: January 10, 2007 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Timothy Washington appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 2001 order denying 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief. As the district court concluded--and contrary to Washington’s position--his motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion filed without authorization. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby,125 S. Ct. 2641
, 2647-48 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton,309 F.3d 1093
, 1 The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, dismissal was proper. See Boyd v. United States,304 F.3d 813
, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-