DocketNumber: 06-2346
Citation Numbers: 241 F. App'x 355
Judges: Bye, Riley, Melloy
Filed Date: 7/23/2007
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-2346 ___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the William Dennis Echols, also known as * District of Minnesota. William D. Harris, also known as Larry * W. Jones, also known as Larry D. * [UNPUBLISHED] Jones, * * Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: July 18, 2007 Filed: July 23, 2007 ___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. William D. Echols (Echols), who is serving a 235-month prison sentence imposed in 1997 after a jury found him guilty of a firearm offense, see United States v. Echols,144 F.3d 584
, 585 (8th Cir. 1998), unsuccessfully sought relief in the district court1 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and then under Federal 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), based on an alleged defect in his 1997 sentencing proceeding. Echols appeals the district court’s adverse ruling, and we affirm. The district court correctly treated Echols’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive28 U.S.C. § 2255
motion filed without authorization. See United States v. Patton,309 F.3d 1093
, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (concluding inmates may not bypass the authorization requirement in28 U.S.C. § 2244
for successive § 2255 motions by purporting to invoke some other procedure); Boyd v. United States,304 F.3d 813
, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (same). We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-