United States v. Jones

449 F. App'x 77
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 7, 2011
Docket10-1920-cr
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 449 F. App'x 77 (United States v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Jones, 449 F. App'x 77 (2d Cir. 2011).

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

William Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), challenging the court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted in 1993 on a federal drug conspiracy charge and is currently imprisoned. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the case, the procedural posture, and the issues raised on appeal.

“We review district court rulings on Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).

“[Rjelief under Rule 60(b) is available with respect to a previous habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the habeas proceeding and not the underlying criminal conviction.” Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.2004). We agree with the district court that Jones’s claims plainly challenged his underlying conviction as opposed to his prior habeas proceeding. We note only that despite Jones’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct before and during his trial, he does not suggest that the government knowingly misled the district court considering his habeas petition.

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Pena v. United States
859 F. Supp. 2d 693 (S.D. New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
449 F. App'x 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jones-ca2-2011.