BOYLE v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RICHARD BOYLE
)
)
)
)
)
Criminal Action No. 2:17-197
Civil Action No. 2:22-1331
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2026, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. 	Construing the Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and Rule
60(b)(3) – Newly Discovered Evidence / Fraud filed pro se by Defendant Richard Boyle (ECF
No. 268) as a true Rule 60(b) motion, the motion is DENIED as it fails on the merits.
2. 	Alternatively, construing the Rule 60(b) motion as a second or successive habeas
petition, the motion is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or
successive petition for writ of habeas corpus.
3. 	To the extent Boyle’s motion is construed as a successive petition for habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, there is no basis to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. 	The motion to amend, ECF No. 280, is DENIED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, under Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure, any party wishing to appeal must file a Notice of Appeal within 60 days.
BY THE COURT:
s/Mark R. Hornak
Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-01331-MRH Document 5 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 1