Williams v. United States of America

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 construed Rule 60(b) motion. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 3/5/2025. (LSC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALAN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 8:24-cv-1152-MSS-CPT
Case No.: 8:21-cr-257-MSS-CPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/
ORDER
Petitioner Alan Williams files a “Motion to Amend” his motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Civ. Doc. 8) In this action, Williams sought
to vacate his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and his 60-month sentence and argued that
§ 922(g) is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to him. (Civ. Doc. 1) On June 5,
2024, the Court denied Williams’s § 2255 motion and found that his claim was both untimely
and squarely foreclosed by binding precedent. (Civ. Doc. 2) The following day, a judgment
was entered against Williams, and this action was closed. (Civ. Doc. 3)
Williams now files a “Motion to Amend” his original § 2255 motion. Citing New York
State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), he argues that he is a “non-violent
offender[] [who is] permitted under the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms for self
defense.” (Civ. Doc. 8 at 2) Because the Court already denied Williams’s original § 2255
motion, his current “Motion to Amend” is generously construed as a motion for relief from
the Court’s order denying his § 2255 motion, under Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A court may relieve a party from a final order for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6).
“[A] judge’s errors of law are [ ] ‘mistake[s]’ under Rule 60(b)(1).” Kemp v. United States, 596
U.S. 528, 530 (2022). “[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in ‘extraordinary
circumstances.’” Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 123 (2017) (citation omitted). “In determining
whether extraordinary circumstances are present, a court may consider a wide range of factors
. . . includ[ing] in an appropriate case, ‘the risk of injustice to the parties’ and ‘the risk of
undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.’” Buck, 580 U.S. at 123 (citation
omitted).
In its earlier order, the Court explained that binding precedent forecloses the claim
that Williams repeats here. In United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024), the
Eleventh Circuit explicitly rejected the Second Amendment challenge to the constitutionality
of § 922(g). Dubois holds that the Eleventh Circuit’s prior precedent in United States v. Rozier,
598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010), in which the Eleventh Circuit upheld the constitutionality of §
922(g)(1), remains good law. Id. at 1293 (“Bruen did not abrogate Rozier.”).
There has been no intervening change in binding precedent nor has any new evidence
become available. Accordingly, because Williams shows neither that the order denying his §
2255 motion contains an error of law nor that extraordinary circumstances justify relief, his
construed Rule 60(b) motion for relief is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 5th day of March, 2025.

2