govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_13-cr-00205-10

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION 
 
VERSUS NO.  13-205 
 
SIDNEY PATTERSON 
 
 
SECTION: “E”  
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
Before the Court is a “Notice of Plain Error”  filed by Defendant Sidney Patterson 
(“Defendant”).1 Because Defendant requests the Court re -consider its March 24, 2026 
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,2 the Court construes Defendant’s notice as a 
motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) as well as a motion 
for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).  
BACKGROUND 
 In September 2013, Defendant, along with others, was indicted on a RICO 
Conspiracy charge.3 On August 28, 2015, a jury found Defendant guilty on multiple counts 
charged in the indictment. 4 The Court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. 5 
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal , and the Fifth Circuit remanded. 6 Following 
remand, the Court re-sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on February 21, 2018. 7 
The Fifth Circuit remanded  the matter  again;8 for a third time, the Court sentenced 
 
1 R. Doc. 1168. 
2 R. Doc. 1166. 
3 R. Doc. 1. 
4 R. Doc. 536. 
5 R. Doc. 712; R. Doc. 715; R. Doc. 919. 
6 United States v. Jones, 873 F.3d 482, 500 (5th Cir. 2017) 
7 R. Doc. 799.  
8 United States v. Jones, 935 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir. 2019) 
Case 2:13-cr-00205-SM-JCW     Document 1170     Filed 04/09/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
Defendant to life imprisonment .9 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the third sentence .10 On 
January 11, 2021, the Supreme Court denied Defendant’s petition for a writ of certiorari.11  
On September 18, 2025, Defendant filed his first motion for reversal alleging 
violation of his Sixth Amendment constitutional rights.12 On October 8, 2025, Defendant 
filed a second motion alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.13 
On November 3, 2025,  Defendant filed a third motion alleging violation of his Fifth 
Amendment constitutional rights.14 Defendant subsequently filed motions to supplement 
each of these petitions.15 Because Defendant’s pleadings raised constitutional challenges 
to his conviction,  the Court construed these pleadings as requests for relief under 28 
U.S.C. § 2255 and granted him leave to bring all of his claims in a single motion, which 
Defendant did.16  
On March 24, 2026, the Court denied Defendant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255  motion as 
time-barred under § 2255(f)(1).17 On April 7, 2026, Defendant filed the present motion.18 
Defendant requests this Court reconsider  its order denying his § 2255 motion as time-
barred. 19 The Defendant does not argue the Court’s decision on the timeliness of his § 
2255 motion was incorrect.  Nor does he  attack a defect in the integrity of the federal 
habeas proceeding.  
 
 
9 R. Doc. 919.  
10 United States v. Jones, 810 F. App’x 333, 334 (5th Cir. 2020). 
11 R. Doc. 997.  
12 R. Doc. 1146 at p. 19. 
13 R. Doc. 1147 at p. 11. 
14 R. Doc. 1148 at p. 11. 
15 R. Docs. 1150, 1151 and 1152. 
16 R. Doc. 1155.  
17 R. Doc. 1166 at pp. 2-5.  
18 R. Doc. 1168.  
19 Id. at p. 3.  
Case 2:13-cr-00205-SM-JCW     Document 1170     Filed 04/09/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
LAW AND ANALYSIS 
Generally, “motions seeking to amend or alter the judgment of a first habeas 
proceeding ‘should be construed as successive habeas petitions.’”20 A motion challenging 
the denial of a previous habeas petition will not be construed as a successive petition only 
if it (1) attacks a defect in the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding or (2) attacks a 
procedural ruling which precluded a merits determination.21 “Fraud on the federal habeas 
court is one example” of a defect in federal habeas proceedings. 22 An attack on the 
correctness of a court’s ruling that a defendant’s claims are time-barred is an attack on a 
procedural ruling precluding a merits determination.23 
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration does not (1) attack a defect in the integrity 
of the federal habeas proceeding or (2) attack a procedural ruling which precluded a 
merits determination. 24 Defendant does not argue the Court committed error in  ruling 
that his § 2255 motion is time-barred, as he does not argue that his motion was in fact 
timely. Nor does Defendant argue the Government or anyone else committed a fraud on 
the Court, or that any other procedural defect jeopardized the integrity of the proceedings 
surrounding his § 2255 motion. These are the only two exceptions to the rule that motions 
seeking to amend or alter the judgment of a first habeas proceeding are construed as 
successive habeas petitions. 
The Court finds that Defendant’s motion is a second or successive habeas petition 
over which the Court does not have jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), “[a] claim 
 
20 Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212, 214–15 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting Fierro v. Johnson, 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th 
Cir.1999)). 
21 Gamboa v. Davis, 782 F. App'x 297, 300 (5th Cir. 2019)(citing Gilkers v. Vannoy, 904 F.3d 336, 343-44 
(5th Cir. 2018); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005).  
22 Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 532 n.5. 
23 Id. at 533.  
24 See Gamboa, 782 F. App'x at 300. 
Case 2:13-cr-00205-SM-JCW     Document 1170     Filed 04/09/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application” must be dismissed unless 
the second or successive habeas petition was authorized by the Fifth Circuit.25 Defendant 
did not obtain authorization from the Fifth Circuit to bring such a petition. 
CONCLUSION 
 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack 
of jurisdiction.26  
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 9th day of April, 2026. 
 
 
________________________________ 
SUSIE MORGAN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
25 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b). 
26 R. Doc. 1168.  
Case 2:13-cr-00205-SM-JCW     Document 1170     Filed 04/09/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight