United States v. Brian Bear Heels

1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 05-1840/4402
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appelas from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Eddie David Cox, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: September 29, 2006
Filed: October 19, 2006
___________
Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, Eddie David Cox, who is serving a life sentence
imposed in 1990, challenges the district court’s 1 order denying his “motion to
resentence nunc pro tunc” (Appeal No. 05-1840), and the court’s orders denying his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion to reopen and his “Motion to
Disqualify the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit” (Appeal No. 05-4402). Following
careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Cox’s motions for
sentencing relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255; cf. United

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (it is well established
that inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2244(b) for filing
successive § 2255 actions by invoking some other procedure), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct.
2953 (2005); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
(if Rule 60(b) motion is actually successive § 2255 motion, district court should
dismiss or, in its discretion, transfer to court of appeals).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Cox’s pending motions are
denied.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --