Calix v. United States

Background

Andre Calix, representing himself on the motion, was convicted by a jury of six bank robberies, one armed bank robbery, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and felony firearm possession. The court sentenced him to 300 months in prison. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Calix later sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his lawyers had been ineffective. The district court denied that request in a December 15, 2022 order. Calix then asked the court to reconsider that decision under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), 60(b)(6), and, alternatively, 59(e). The United States opposed the motion.

Calix argued that the district court had wrongly failed to consider whether a third competency examination violated the time limits in 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). He also argued that the court had wrongly required him to show prejudice from his appeals lawyer’s alleged conflict of interest instead of presuming prejudice. He sought to vacate his conviction and sentence.

Legal standards

Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief from a final judgment for a material mistake, including a legal error that changed the outcome. Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for another reason that justifies it, but the court described that relief as extraordinary and available only in exceptional circumstances. Rule 59(e) permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, but the standard is strict and generally requires controlling law or evidence that the court overlooked.

The court also explained that reconsideration is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used simply to repeat arguments that the court already considered and rejected.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Calix had not shown a mistake under Rule 60(b)(1). It repeated its earlier conclusion that trial counsel’s request for an additional competency evaluation was not unreasonable or inconsistent with sound defense strategy. The court also rejected Calix’s claim concerning appellate counsel’s alleged conflict. It explained that prejudice is presumed only when a defendant establishes both an actual conflict and an adverse effect on the lawyer’s performance. The court found that Calix had not shown that the alleged conflict affected appellate counsel’s performance.

The court also found no exceptional circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6). Calix offered no new facts, changed controlling law, or other basis for disturbing the earlier judgment; instead, he sought to relitigate the same ineffective-assistance arguments. For the same reasons, the court denied relief under Rule 59(e).

Disposition

The court denied Calix’s motion for reconsideration. It did not grant a certificate of appealability because Calix had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order directed the clerk to close the specified docket entries and mail a copy of the order to Calix.