[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 11, 2010
No. 08-14330 JOHN P. LEY
Non-Argument Calendar ACTING CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 92-00026-CR-BH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS A. DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(January 11, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Diaz, pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order
granting the Government’s motion for a sentence reduction from life to a 30-year
sentence. In his brief, he claims that, although he provided substantial assistance to
the Government, he did not receive any credit for his participation and did not
receive a sentence reduction.
Rule 60(b) provides that a “court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” under certain
circumstances. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6). Rule 60(b), however, “does not
provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case.” United States v. Mosavi, 138
F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998).
In Mosavi, for example, a defendant appealed the district court’s denial of
his Rule 60(b) motion challenging an order in his criminal forfeiture proceeding.
Id. at 1365. We held that the district court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction
necessary to provide Rule 60(b) relief and affirmed the denial of that motion. Id.
We held that the “judgment and order that the defendant contest[ed] were entered,
not in a civil case, but in a criminal case, and a proper appeal . . . should have been
raised in the defendant’s criminal appeal of his conviction and sentence.” Id. at
1366.
Here, Diaz’s Rule 60(b) motion challenges an order in his criminal case. As
2
we held in Mosavi, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Its
judgment denying relief is, accordingly,
AFFIRMED.
3