United States v. Eddie David Cox, No. 05-4402 (8th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. District court properly denied defendant's motions for sentencing relief; an inmate may not bypass the rules governing successive habeas by invoking some other procedure.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 05-1840/4402 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Eddie David Cox, Appellant. * * * * Appelas from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: September 29, 2006 Filed: October 19, 2006 ___________ Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this consolidated appeal, Eddie David Cox, who is serving a life sentence imposed in 1990, challenges the district court s1 order denying his motion to resentence nunc pro tunc (Appeal No. 05-1840), and the court s orders denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion to reopen and his Motion to Disqualify the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit (Appeal No. 05-4402). Following careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Cox s motions for sentencing relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255; cf. United 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (it is well established that inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2244(b) for filing successive § 2255 actions by invoking some other procedure), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2953 (2005); Boyd v. United States, 304 F.3d 813, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (if Rule 60(b) motion is actually successive § 2255 motion, district court should dismiss or, in its discretion, transfer to court of appeals). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Cox s pending motions are denied. ______________________________ -2-

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.