Williams v. United States Of America

Filing 42

ORDER dismissing #40 Rule 60(b)(6)(4) Motion; denying #15 Motion for status of Rule 60b motion; denying #16 Motion for Retroactive reduction; denying #19 Motion for reduction under 3582; denying #24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 8/31/17. (loh)

u.S. DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of6A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

Filed In Office

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

m

WAYCROSS DIVISION

^
Deputy Clerk

FRANKLIN L. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,
CASE NO. CV514-062

V,

CR506-014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER

Before

the

Court

are

Petitioner's

Motion

for

Status

(Doc. 15), Motion for Retroactive Reduction (Doc. 16), Motion
for Reduction (Doc. 19), Motion to Compel Judgment (Doc. 24)
and Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 40).
Petitioner's Motion for Rule 60(b) is in fact an attaclc

on "the federal court's previous resolution of a claim on the

merits." Peters v. United States,

F. App'x

, 2017 WL

443631, *1 (11th Cir. 2017). As a result Petitioner's motion
is

more

accurately

characterized

as

a

successive

§

2255

motion. Because the motion is successive. Petitioner "needed

to obtain an order from this Court authorizing the district
court to consider the motion." Id. at *2. Because Petitioner
has

not

received

jurisdiction

to

such

consider

authorization,

the

motion.

the

Id.

Court

lacks

Accordingly,

Petitioner's Motion for Rule 60(b) is DISMISSED. After careful