United States v. Fields ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-10843
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAY CHARLES FIELDS, also
known as RC, also known as
Big Daddy,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 3:98-CV-2022-P & 3:93-CR-166-P
_________________________________________________________________
September 29, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ray Charles Fields, federal prisoner # 24508-077, appeals from
the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as
time-barred by the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. A
section 2255 movant has one year from the date on which the
judgment of conviction becomes final to file a motion to vacate his
sentence. § 2255. A federal judgment of conviction becomes
"final" for purposes of § 2255 on the date on which the Supreme
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Court denies a petition for certiorari. See United States v.
Thomas, 203 F.3d 350, 354-55 (5th Cir. 2000). Thus, the one-year
statute of limitations began running in Fields’s case on October 7,
1996, the date on which the Supreme Court denied his request for
certiorari, and expired on October 6, 1997. See Fields v. United
States, 519 U.S. 807 (1996). Fields’s § 2255 motion, filed on
August 26, 1998, was filed more than one year after his conviction
became final, and it was therefore time-barred.
The district court’s entry of an amended judgment on
August 27, 1998, pursuant to Fields’s motion, is irrelevant to the
determination of when Fields’s conviction became final for purposes
of the AEDPA’s time bar. Fields’s motion, submitted pursuant to
both Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1651, was not properly
brought in the district court pursuant to either. The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure in the United States
district courts in suits of a civil nature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1,
81; United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999).
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), therefore, simply does not
provide for relief from a judgment in a criminal case.” O’Keefe,
169 F.3d at 289. Additionally, § 1651(a) is used to collaterally
attack sentences under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2255 “when the
petitioner has completed his sentence and is no longer in custody.”
United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Fields
2
was not entitled to an amended criminal judgment under § 1651
because he remains in custody and has not served his sentence. See
id.
Fields’s § 2255 motion was time-barred by the AEDPA’s one-year
statute of limitations. The district court’s judgment dismissing
his motion on this basis is
A F F I R M E D.
3