Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Vincent Williams

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-30640
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
VINCENT WILLIAMS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:00-CR-129-2
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Vincent Williams, federal prisoner #27040-034, appeals the district court’s
denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from a criminal order of
forfeiture. Williams argues that his Rule 60(b)(4) motion was proper because he
was raising a jurisdictional challenge to his conviction.
This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion de
novo. Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). Rule 60(b) provides
relief from judgment in civil cases, not in criminal cases. See United States v.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 15, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-30640
2
O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the district court did not
err in denying Williams’s Rule 60(b) motion. Moreover, to the extent that
Williams’s Rule 60(b) motion was a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Williams
had not obtained the requisite authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-31 (2005); United States v. Rich, 141
F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 1998); Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir.
1999); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --