United States v. Bermea-Cepeda

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 18, 2009 No. 08-40003 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN BERMEA-CEPEDA Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:98-CR-571-ALL Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Juan Bermea-Cepeda, federal prisoner #67637-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action that he characterized as a motion to reconsider a denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. In 1999, a jury found Bermea-Cepeda guilty of possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, illegal reentry, being a felon in possession of a firearm, * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. No. 08-40003 being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and attempting to kill a border patrol agent. In 2002, the district court sentenced Bermea-Cepeda, following an appeal and remand, to a total of 206 months of imprisonment. On appeal to this court, Bermea-Cepeda argues that the district court erred in denying his F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) motion, filed in October 2007. Bermea- Cepeda asserts that the judgment of conviction was void under F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) because he was denied a speedy trial in violation of his constitutional rights. As criminal proceedings in the United States district courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, F ED. R. C RIM. P. 1, and not the Rules of Civil Procedure, Bermea-Cepeda’s motion under F ED. R. C IV. P. 60(b) was an unauthorized action which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Bermea- Cepeda has thus appealed from the dismissal of a meaningless, unauthorized action. See id. We affirm on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. AFFIRMED. 2