In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 16‐2177, 16‐3578, 16‐4207 QUAWNTAY ADAMS, Petitioner‐Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent‐Appellee. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 13‐cv‐170 — David R. Herndon, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED DECEMBER 13, 2018 ____________________ Before KANNE, ROVNER, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. After losing his motion for post‐ conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255, Quawntay Adams filed a motion to reopen the proceedings in the district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because we con‐ clude that the motion under Rule 60(b) was merely an appeal of issues already addressed in the initial motion, it amounted to an unauthorized, second motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 2 Nos. 16‐2177, 16‐3578, 16‐4207 which the district court lacked jurisdiction to review. We af‐ firm. I. Quawntay Adams was convicted by a jury of possessing, with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, attempting to es‐ cape, and escaping from federal custody. Before trial, the gov‐ ernment announced that it intended to use his prior Califor‐ nia state court conviction for a felony drug offense to increase his potential sentence. This conviction elevated his statutory maximum term of imprisonment from forty years to life. At sentencing, the district court also used this prior conviction as one of two predicate convictions under the career offender guideline of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines).1 As a career offender, Adams faced a Guide‐ lines sentencing range of 360 months to life. Adams’ counsel did not object to the use of this 1997 California state court con‐ viction as a predicate offense. At sentencing, the district court concluded that Adams qualified as a career offender and sen‐ tenced him to 420 months in prison. On appeal, Adams’ counsel did not raise any sentencing issues and alleged only a speedy trial violation and disputed the sufficiency of the evidence on two counts of conviction. In response to his insufficiency argument, this court vacated the money laundering conviction, but otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction, and remanded to the district court for resentencing. United States v. Adams, 625 F.3d 371 (7th Cir. 2010) (Adams’ first direct appeal). 1 The other predicate offense is not at issue. Nos. 16‐2177, 16‐3578, 16‐4207 3 During his remand for re‐sentencing, Adams argued that he was misclassified as a career offender because his conviction for selling a controlled substance under California law was not a controlled substance offense as defined under the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the district court reasoned that the argument had been waived as it had not been raised during Adams’ initial sentencing and appeal. (Criminal R. 529 at 29). Second, the district court found that, on the merits, Adams’ California controlled substance offense was indeed a controlled substance offense under the Guidelines. Id. In so deciding, the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals