USA v. Tony Ford


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tony L. Ford. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-14762 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cr-00044-SCB-JSS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TONY L. FORD, a.k.a. BoBo, a.k.a. Bo, a.k.a. Big Head, Defendant-Appellant, DAVID GEE, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, Movant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (February 14, 2017) Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 2 of 3 Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tony Ford, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his pro se motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). Ford also appeals the district court’s denial of his two motions for reconsideration of the denial of Rule 60(d)(3) relief. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a Rule 60(d)(3) motion and the denial of a motion for reconsideration. Cox Nuclear Pharm., Inc. v. CTI, Inc., 478 F.3d 1303, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(d)(3)); Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (motion for reconsideration). After a jury trial, Ford was convicted of multiple drug-trafficking offenses; he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Ford’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Ford later filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied as untimely. Ford then sought -- via a Rule 60(d)(3) motion -- to have his criminal judgment set aside based on alleged fraud on the court. Because Rule 60 applies only to civil cases, however, Ford may not use a Rule 60 motion to challenge his criminal conviction or sentence. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 2 Case: 15-14762 Date Filed: 02/14/2017 Page: 3 of 3 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Felker v. Turpin, 101 F.3d 657, 661 (11th Cir. 1996) (“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions.”). The district court abused no discretion in denying Ford’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion. In his motions for reconsideration, Ford reargued the merits of his Rule 60(d)(3) motion, presented evidence that could have been raised before entry of judgment, and demonstrated no manifest error of law or fact. Given this situation, the district court denied properly Ford’s motions. See Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343 (“The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” (alteration omitted)). AFFIRMED. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?