Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealmotionleasecivil procedurepiracy

defendantappealtrialmotionleasecivil procedure

Related Cases

United States v. Hoffecker, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 6135938

Facts

Charles Paul Hoffecker was convicted by a jury in March 2006 on three counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, receiving a sentence of 210 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. After exhausting his appeals, including a denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court, Hoffecker filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2009, which was denied. In 2018, he sought authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, claiming new evidence regarding the timeliness of the mail fraud counts, but this was also denied by the Third Circuit.

Defendant received a sentence of 210 months imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. … Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, which the Court denied in full.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to consider Hoffecker's motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3) as it relates to his underlying conviction.

However, relying on this Rule of Civil Procedure to alter the judgment in this criminal action is inappropriate.

Rule

A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that seeks to collaterally attack a petitioner's underlying conviction should be treated as a successive habeas petition, requiring prior authorization from the appropriate court of appeals.

A petitioner may bring a successive § 2255 motion only in limited circumstances: A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain …

Analysis

The court determined that Hoffecker's motion under Rule 60(b) was essentially a second or successive motion under § 2255, as it sought to vacate his convictions based on claims of newly discovered evidence and fraud. Since Hoffecker had not obtained the necessary authorization from the Third Circuit to file such a motion, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain it.

Petitioner clearly challenges his underlying conviction in this Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) motion. Indeed, he requests this Court vacate his convictions on two mail fraud counts and seeks his immediate release or that this Court vacate his sentence and remand the case for retrial.

Conclusion

The court denied Hoffecker's Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) motion due to lack of jurisdiction and also denied his motion for a reduction of sentence as moot since he had already been released from custody.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Rule 60(b)(2) and (3) motion is denied as it constitutes an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court denied Hoffecker's motions, affirming that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his claims.

The government opposed … and the Third Circuit denied Defendant's application.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Johnson v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 52, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9098, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,014

State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 578 S.E.2d 32

Knapp v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., Inc., 932 F.Supp. 1169

Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 738

People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497, 917 P.2d 628, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789, 65 USLW 2017, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4494, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7229