Lowe v. United States of America
Filing
2
ORDER DENYING 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Omarr Lowe, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 06/09/2017. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 08-CR-340
17-C-0813
OMARR LOWE,
Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant Omar Lowe was found guilty by a jury of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine,
Distribution of Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Distribute, and Possession of a
Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Offense and sentenced to ten years in prison. The
Judgment of Conviction was entered on November 25, 2009. Lowe appealed, and the judgment was
affirmed by order of the United States Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit on August 10, 2010.
On June 8, 2017, Lowe filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is denied.
First of all, Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has no application to a criminal
conviction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and
proceedings in the United States district courts . . . .”). Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure concerns victims’ rights, not the rights of criminal defendants seeking relief from their
convictions. Although post-conviction relief can be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a motion
seeking such relief must be filed within one year of the underlying judgment becoming final, absent
a government-caused impediment to filing earlier or the Supreme Court’s recognition of a new right
giving rise to a claim to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Lowe’s judgment has been final for almost
seven years, and there is no suggestion of any impediment that prevented Lowe from filing earlier
or a newly recognized right to relief. Clearly, the time within which to challenge his conviction has
long since passed. Accordingly, his motion for relief from judgment is denied. To the extent the
motion can be construed as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 it is likewise denied and the
action dismissed.
SO ORDERED at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 9th day of June, 2017.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
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?