Opinion
CASE NO.: 1:97-CR-3 (WLS)
11-19-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SEAN CRAWFORD, Defendant.
ORDER
In this most recent attack to the legality of his sentence, Defendant Sean Crawford moves the Court for a resentencing via a "Rule 60(b) Motion for Re-Sentencing Due to Invalid Sentence Enhancements." Crawford contends that the Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) entitles him to resentencing. The United States counters that Rule 60 does not apply in criminal cases, a § 2255 motion would be successive, and Alleyne does not apply to facts that change the advisory sentencing guideline ranges.
The Court need not—and cannot—reach the merits of Crawford's motion because it is in spirit a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion must be treated as a successive habeas petition if it (1) "seeks to add a new ground of relief" or (2) "attacks the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the merits." Id. at 532. In this context, the term "on the merits" refers "to a determination that there exist or do not exist grounds entitling a petition to habeas corpus relief." Id. at 532 n.4. Crawford's contention that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Alleyne attacks his conviction and sentencing. See United States v. Griffin, No. 08-322(2)(DSD), 2013 WL 5335933, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 23, 2013) (holding that prisoner's Rule 60 motion was a successive petition because it challenged his sentence under Alleyne); Lewis v. United States, No. 11-cv-2012, 2013 WL 4010301, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2013) (same).
Because Crawford's motion must be treated as a successive petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it unless he has obtained permission from the Court of Appeals to file a successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no evidence Crawford obtained a certification from the Eleventh Circuit, so his Crawford's motion must be, and is, DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of November, 2013.
________
W. LOUIS SANDS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT