Although Mayberry’s self-styled Rule 60(b)(4) motion is date-stamped “received” on 13
September 2006, the court, under the “mailbox rule,” deems his motion filed on the date he delivered
it to prison authorities for mailing, presumptively, 7 September 2006, the day that he signed it. See
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301
(11 Cir. 2001).
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DOUGLAS GENE MAYBERRY,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This action is before the court on a motion under FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b)(4) filed by
federal inmate DOUGLAS GENE MAYBERRY (“Mayberry”), on 7 September 2006 (Doc.
No. 2). By his motion, Mayberry challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon him
by this court for laundering the money proceeds of a drug conspiracy. See Criminal Case
No. 3:96CR51-TMH. For the reasons that follow, the court construes Mayberry’s motion
as successive motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and concludes that he is not entitled
to any relief.
Case 3:06-cv-00841-TMH-VPM Document 3 Filed 09/27/2006 Page 1 of 5
Mayberry v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
In his motion, Mayberry contends that Count II of his indictment suffered from a
jurisdictional defect because it charged multiple financial transactions as a criminal money
laundering offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. No. 2 at pp. 3-5.) Mayberry
raised this same claim in a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that he filed in this court
on 4 August 2000. See United States v. Mayberry, Criminal Case No. 3:96CR51-TMH:
Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. No. 748). The district court, however,
found the claim to be meritless and decided the issue adversely to Mayberry. Id.: