USA v. Horace Lockhart, No. 10-12947 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JAN 20, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 10-12947 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:92-cr-00679-FAM-6 USA, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HORACE EDWARD LOCKHART, a.k.a. Clint, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 20, 2011) Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Horace Edward Lockhart appeals the district court s denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Lockhart contends the district court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction, and he recounts the three issues raised in his motion: that the indictment was defective, that the indictment was impermissibly amended, and that the jury was improperly instructed on the issue of lesser included offenses. We review jurisdictional questions de novo. Williams v. Chatman, 510 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Where, in a purported Rule 60(b) motion, a defendant challenges the validity of his conviction by seeking to add a new ground for relief or attacking the previous resolution of a claim on the merits, the motion is properly construed as a successive habeas petition. Id. at 1293 94 (quoting Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2648 (2005)). Absent an order from this Court authorizing consideration of a successive habeas petition, the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction as to that petition. Id. at 1295; see also Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive § 2255 petition without our prior authorization, even if the petition is labeled a Rule 60(b) motion). Because Lockhart s Rule 60(b) motion asserts three bases for relief from the state court s judgment of conviction, and because it does not allege any error in his 2 earlier § 2255 proceedings, the motion is properly construed as a successive habeas petition. See Williams, 510 F.3d at 1293 94. Lockhart did not obtain authorization from this Court that would give the district court jurisdiction to consider a successive habeas petition; therefore, the district court properly denied Lockhart s Rule 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
