Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from denial of his habeas petition that challenged his sentence, where defendant argued that his post-conviction counsel had abandoned him by failing to withdraw from his case on appeal and therefore depriving him of opportunity to file his own memorandum in support of his request for certificate of appealability that had been previously declined by Ct. of Appeals. Any ruling on instant Rule 60(b) motion could not direct Ct. of Appeals to issue certificate of appealability as requested by defendant. Moreover, defendant had previously filed similar motion to recall mandate to reopen his appeal, which had been denied by Ct. of Appeals. Also, defendant’s underlying claim that his trial counsel was ineffective during sentencing hearing by misrepresenting his potential sentence and by failing to present mitigating evidence was without merit.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Appellate Procedure