DocketNumber: 05-2700
Judges: Riley, Magill, Gruender
Filed Date: 4/6/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-2700 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Darius M. Moss, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: March 21, 2006 Filed: April 6, 2006 ___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Darius Moss appeals the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 1999 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; he also appeals the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. Moss’s motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion. 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
, 1094 (8th 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, we deny a certificate of appealability (COA), see United States v. Lambros,404 F.3d 1034
, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (COA is required to appeal denial of any motion that ultimately seeks habeas relief), cert. denied,125 S. Ct. 2953
(2005), and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -2-