DocketNumber: 06-3426
Citation Numbers: 241 F. App'x 354
Judges: Murphy, Smith, Shepherd
Filed Date: 7/23/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3426 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Thomas Finley, * Eastern District of Missouri. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: July 18, 2007 Filed: July 23, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Finley appeals the district court’s1 order denying his motion for review of his 216-month prison sentence, imposed in 1998 following his murder-for-hire convictions. See United States v. Finley,175 F.3d 645
, 646-47 (8th Cir. 1999). Finley’s motion, which he characterized as an “appeal of an otherwise final sentence pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 3742
(a)(1) & (2),” was actually a successive and untimely28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion, filed without authorization. See United States v. Patton,309 F.3d 1093
, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. requirement in28 U.S.C. § 2244
for successive § 2255 motions by purporting to invoke some other procedure); United States v. Auman,8 F.3d 1268
, 1270-71 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting § 3742 concerns basis for appellate review of district court’s sentencing decisions; it does not grant jurisdiction to district court to review final sentence). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-