USA vs Tajrick Conaway

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 9, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-12154
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:00-cr-00004-WLS-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TAJRICK CONAWAY,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 9, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On August 29, 2000, appellant having pled guilty to a two-count indictment
charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844,
was sentenced by the district court to concurrent prison terms of 292 months.1
Subsequently, in United States v. Conaway, 326 Fed.Appx 545 (11 Cir. 2009),th
we affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reduce his
sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Following the issuance of the mandate, appellant, on August 18, 2009,
moved the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to amend its order
denying him § 3582(c) relief. The court denied the motion on April 7, 2010.
Appellant moved the court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(c) to reconsider its April 7
order denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court denied the Rule 59(c) motion on
April 27, 2010, and appellant now appeals that ruling.
A motion filed under § 3582(c)(2) “is not a civil post-conviction action, but
rather a continuation of a criminal case.” United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317,
1318 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, a defendant cannot employ Rule 60(b) to challenge
the district court’s denial of § 3582(c) relief. Id. (holding that appellant could not
use Rule 60(b)(4) to attack the district court’s order denying his §3582(c)(2)
motion). In short, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s
Appellant was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The Guidelines1
sentencing range was 292 to 365 months.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

motions under Rule 60(b)(6).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --