Adams v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion to reopen his section 2255 petition, where Dist. Ct. had previously rejected defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Dist. Ct.’s finding that defendant's prior California drug conviction qualified as controlled substance offense pursuant to section 4B1.2(b) of USSG to support his 420-month sentence, as well as Dist. Ct.'s reliance on incorrect charging document in determining that defendant was career offender. Record showed that Ct. of Appeals had denied defendant’s request for certificate of appeal of Dist. Ct.’s denial of his 2255 petition, and defendant may not generally use Rule 60(b) motion to attack federal court’s prior resolution of habeas/section 2255 petition. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion was unauthorized successive 2255 petition, where defendant had adequately presented his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his initial section 2255 petition, and where Dist. Ct. had previously addressed and denied each of those arguments, thereby making instant Rule 60(b) motion duplicative of instant section 2255 proceeding.