Smith v. FCI Texarkana Warden

Case: 24-40142 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 24-40142 March 12, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Curtis Smith,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus FCI Texarkana Warden,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CV-116 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Curtis Smith1 appeals (1) the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the validity of his convictions and armed career criminal sentences for possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute and (2) the denial of his related postjudgment motion for reconsideration, which the district court construed _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 1 Bureau of Prisons register number 19000-424.

Case: 24-40142 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2025

No. 24-40142

as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Smith’s § 2241 petition because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment, see Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 19-20 (2017); Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987), and Smith’s timely appeal of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up the underlying § 2241 judgment for review, see Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 520 (2020). Contrary to Smith’s contentions, the district court properly construed his postjudgment motion for reconsideration as a motion under Rule 60(b). See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Behringer v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 189, 190 (5th Cir. 1996). In denying Rule 60(b) relief, the district court determined that Smith could not challenge his convictions under § 2241, in lieu of filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, because he failed to show that a remedy under § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the challenged judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). In order to proceed under § 2241, Smith had to show that “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). Smith fails to show an abuse of discretion. See Behringer, 75 F.3d at 190. He invokes three Supreme Court decisions that he asserts that are “retroactively applicable”—Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984); and Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1994). However, he does not explain how unusual circumstances made it impossible or impracticable for him to seek relief under § 2255 based on those cases, which each predate his conviction by more than a decade. See Jones, 599 U.S. at 478. Nor does Smith otherwise cite unusual circumstances

Case: 24-40142 Document: 57-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2025

No. 24-40142

that make it impossible or impracticable for him to seek relief from his sentence under § 2255. The order denying Smith’s Rule 60(b) motion is AFFIRMED.