Owens v. United States of America

Filing 61

ORDER denying 56 Motion under Rule 60(b); granting 57 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 59 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 06/10/2019.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LESLEY OWENS,
Movant,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

Cv. No. 13-2139
Cr. No. 08-20257

ORDER
On January 15, 2009, a jury found Movant Lesley Owens guilty
of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g).

(Cr. ECF No. 57.)

The Court found that the Armed

Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”) applied to Owens based on his two
prior robbery convictions and three prior aggravated assault convictions.

(See Cv. ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 8–11.)

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2013.

Owens filed a motion

(Cv. ECF No. 1.)

On June 21,

2016, the Court denied that motion and entered judgment.

(Cv. ECF

Nos. 31, 32.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Owens moves for
relief from the Court’s June 21, 2016 Order denying his § 2255
motion.

(Cv. ECF No. 56)

Owens argues that the Court mistakenly

concluded that one of his aggravated assault convictions constituted a violent felony under the ACCA.

The Court considered and

rejected Owens’ argument in its June 21, 2016 Order denying § 2255
relief.

Whether an ACCA predicate crime qualifies as a violent felony
is a legal question.
(6th Cir. 2018).
category of

Davis v. United States, 900 F.3d 733, 735

An alleged legal error “is subsumed in the

mistake

under

Rule

60(b)(1).”

United

Leprich, 169 F. App'x 926, 932 (6th Cir. 2006).

States

v.

Under Rule

60(b)(1), Owens’ motion must have been filed “no more than a year
after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

“This time limit is juris-

dictional, and the district court does not have the discretion to
extend the period of limitation.”

Mitchell v. Rees, 261 F. App'x

825, 830 (6th Cir. 2008).
Owens filed his March 18, 2019 Rule 60(b) motion two-and-ahalf years after the Court denied his § 2255 motion.
is therefore untimely.

The motion

Owens’ motion under Rule 60(b) is DENIED.

On April 8, 2019, Owens filed a motion to correct clerical
error in which he asks the Court to consider certain revisions to
his Rule 60(b) motion.

The motion is GRANTED.

The Court has

considered this material, and it does not change the outcome. (ECF
No. 57.)
Because the Court denies Owens’ Rule 60(b) motion, it also
DENIES AS MOOT Owens’ April 29, 2019 motion requesting summary
judgment on his Rule 60(b) motion.

(ECF No. 59.)

So ordered this 10th day of June, 2019.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2