United States v. George Lemark Patton

Eighth Circuit

United States v. George Lemark Patton

309 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22419, 2002 WL 31409370

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 2002

Docket02-2174

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 309 F.3d 1093 (United States v. George Lemark Patton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. George Lemark Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22419, 2002 WL 31409370 (8th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate George Lemark Patton is serving an 87-month sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 2. Patton filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was denied, and then filed this “petition challenging district courtfs] jurisdiction of illegally imposed sentence and fine,” purportedly under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court 1 denied the petition, and Patton appeals. We affirm.

Rule 12(b)(2) permits the district court to notice a jurisdictional challenge “at any time during the pendency of the proceedings.” United States v. Wolff, 241 F.3d 1055, 1056-57 (8th Cir.2001). The proceeding that lead to Patton’s conviction and sentence is no longer pending. Thus, his Rule 12(b)(2) motion was properly denied.

It is apparent that Patton sought relief under Rule 12(b)(2) in order to avoid the requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) that he obtain authorization from this court to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have consistently held that inmates may not bypass the limitation on successive habeas petitions in this fashion. See United States v. Noske, 235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (writ of coram nobis); United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir.2000) (28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion); Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333, 336 (8th Cir.) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1010, 118 S.Ct. 595, 139 L.Ed.2d 431 (1997); Ruiz v. Norris, 104 F.3d 163, 164 (8th Cir.) (motion to recall mandate), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1073, 117 S.Ct. 725, 136 L.Ed.2d 642 (1997); Mathenia v. Delo, 99 F.3d 1476, 1480 (8th Cir.1996) (Rule 60(b) motion), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1123, 117 S.Ct. 2518, 138 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1997). Patton has not requested authorization from this court, and the district court did not transfer his Rule 12(b)(2) motion to this court for that purpose. See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate George Lemark Patton is serving an 87-month sentence after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 2. Patton filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was denied, and then filed this “petition challenging district courtfs] jurisdiction of illegally imposed sentence and fine,” purportedly under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court 1 denied the petition, and Patton appeals. We affirm.

Rule 12(b)(2) permits the district court to notice a jurisdictional challenge “at any time during the pendency of the proceedings.” United States v. Wolff, 241 F.3d 1055, 1056-57 (8th Cir.2001). The proceeding that lead to Patton’s conviction and sentence is no longer pending. Thus, his Rule 12(b)(2) motion was properly denied.

It is apparent that Patton sought relief under Rule 12(b)(2) in order to avoid the requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) that he obtain authorization from this court to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have consistently held that inmates may not bypass the limitation on successive habeas petitions in this fashion. See United States v. Noske, 235 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (writ of coram nobis); United States v. Lurie, 207 F.3d 1075, 1077 (8th Cir.2000) (28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion); Williams v. Hopkins, 130 F.3d 333, 336 (8th Cir.) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1010, 118 S.Ct. 595, 139 L.Ed.2d 431 (1997); Ruiz v. Norris, 104 F.3d 163, 164 (8th Cir.) (motion to recall mandate), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1073, 117 S.Ct. 725, 136 L.Ed.2d 642 (1997); Mathenia v. Delo, 99 F.3d 1476, 1480 (8th Cir.1996) (Rule 60(b) motion), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1123, 117 S.Ct. 2518, 138 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1997). Patton has not requested authorization from this court, and the district court did not transfer his Rule 12(b)(2) motion to this court for that purpose. See Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813 (8th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 F.3d 1093, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 22419, 2002 WL 31409370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-george-lemark-patton-ca8-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack