govinfo:USCOURTS-ilsd-3_98-cr-30200-12

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,       
 
       
Plaintiff,  
       
v .        
 
       
ROBERT NELSON HOWELL,      
 
       
Defendant.             No. 98-CR-30200-DRH 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 
 
HERNDON, District Judge: 
 Pending before the Court is another motion to overturn his sentence and 
conviction (Doc. 485).  This time, Howell moves to vacate judgment of conviction 
pursuant to Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 11.  Based on the following, the 
Court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction the motion.  
 Once a district court enters final judgment it lacks jurisdiction to continue 
to hear related issues, except to the extent authorized by statute or rule.  
See 
Carlisle v. United States , 517 U.S. 416 (1996).  The following post-judgment 
motions are allowed if timely filed.  Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, 
revision is proper only within 14 days , unless the prosecutor files an appropriate 
motion or the court of appeals remands.  Further, a Rule 33 motion for new trial 
based on evidence must be brought within 3 years after the verdict and a Rule 33 
Case 3:98-cr-30200-NJR     Document 486     Filed 08/17/16     Page 1 of 4     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 2 of 4
motion for new trial based on other grounds must be brought within 14 days after 
the verdict.  Lastly, a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which has a 1 year 
statute of limitations.   
 Here, Howell does not cite any case la w or statute which allows the Court to 
consider his motion.  Rule 35 is inapplicable because this motion is brought 
almost 16 years 
after the sentencing and judgment; the motion does not appear to 
be brought to correct the sentence arithmetical, technical or other clear error and 
the government has not filed a motion to reduce.  Likewise, Rule 33 does not 
apply because the motion does not appear  to be brought on newly discovered 
evidence and it was not filed within 14 days of the verdict to be timely to be 
brought based on other reasons.  Therefor e, the only other possible procedural 
avenue that Howell could bring this motion is a § 2255 collateral attack. However, 
as the record reflects Howell has filed numerous motions attempting to attack his 
conviction and judgment.  In order for the Court to consider a second/successive 
petition, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals must certify the successive petition 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 8.  
Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th 
Cir. 1996).  The Seventh Circuit has not do ne so.  Therefore, the Court does not 
have jurisdiction to entertain the pending motion.   
 Accordingly, the Court DIMISSES for lack of jurisdiction motion to vacate 
judgment of conviction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (Doc. 
485).  If Howell is serious about pursuing this motion, he should ask the Seventh 
Circuit for permission to file a successive § 2255 motion.  
Case 3:98-cr-30200-NJR     Document 486     Filed 08/17/16     Page 2 of 4     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 3 of 4
Lastly, as Howell is well aware, Howell has filed countless motions in this 
closed criminal case and countless habeas cases seeking to overturn his sentence 
and conviction and/or to reduce his sentence.  None of his attempts has 
succeeded.  The Court need not recite all of his failed motions/cases.  He has been 
warned by this Court and the Seventh Circuit to stop filling frivolous motions; yet 
Howell does not heed the warnings.  The Court reminds Howell of the Seventh 
Circuit’s February 10, 2014 admonishment: “Howell must understand that his 
only avenue of relief from the judgment and sentence is provided by 28 U.S.C. §§ 
2244 and 2255(h).  Howell needs this court’s permission, and the statutes limit 
the grounds on which permission may be gr anted.  Further, unauthorized filings 
in the district court, or any frivolous application to this court, may lead to a 
circuit-wide ban on further filings of any kind.”  (Doc. 455).  The Court also 
reminds Howell of the Seventh Circuit’s sanction entered on February 13, 2014: 
“Howell is fined $500.  Until he pays that sum in full to the clerk of this court, he 
is barred from filing further civil suits in the courts of this circuit in accordance 
with 
Support Sys. Int’l v. Mack, 45 F.3d  185 (7th Cir. 1995), and any papers he 
submits will be returned unfiled.  Moreover, any papers he submits attacking his 
current criminal conviction will also be returned unfiled.  Finally, any applications 
for leave to file collateral attacks will be deemed denied 30 days after filing unless 
the court orders otherwise. 
Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 
1997).  Howell v. United States, 14-1113 (7th Cir. February 13, 2014).  Thus, the 
Case 3:98-cr-30200-NJR     Document 486     Filed 08/17/16     Page 3 of 4     Page ID
#<pageID>
Page 4 of 4
Court PRECLUDES Howell from filing any more motions in this closed criminal 
case unless authorized first by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.         
  IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Signed this 17th day of August, 2016. 
         
 
  
        
       United States District Judge
 
Digitally signed by 
Judge David R. 
Herndon 
Date: 2016.08.17 
13:35:34 -05'00'
Case 3:98-cr-30200-NJR     Document 486     Filed 08/17/16     Page 4 of 4     Page ID
#<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight