Motion for relief from judgment; FedRCivP 60(b)(6); Buck v Davis; 28 USC § 2255(f) limitations period; Apprendi v New Jersey violation; “Death results” sentencing enhancement for a conviction of using interstate channels to commission a murder-for-hire; Procedurally defaulted claim; Cause; “Actual innocence”; Whether the government waived or forfeited the limitations argument; Whether a compassionate release order created a new final judgment; 18 USC § 3582(b); An order not authorized by § 3582(c)(1); Relation back; Mayle v Felix; Equitable tolling; Equitable estoppel; Fraud on the court; Fraudulent concealment

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that the district court did not err in understanding § 2255(f) to foreclose petitioner-West’s entitlement to Rule 60(b) relief. Further, even putting aside the statute of limitations, “Rule 60(b)(6) relief would be ‘inappropriate.’” West was convicted of using interstate channels to commission a murder-for-hire. If “death results” in such cases, there is a mandatory minimum life sentence. “West’s indictment did not explicitly charge the” enhancement, and the jury was not instructed on it. But he was sentenced to life. “No one noticed the Apprendi violation at the time, and West did not raise the issue in his direct appeal or in his” § 2255 motion. Nearly a decade later, he raised it in his Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from his § 2255 judgment. The court noted that “the merit or futility of that hypothetical Apprendi-based § 2255 claim is relevant to the resolution of the Rule 60(b) motion. As the district court correctly recognized, if the § 2255 claim would inevitably fail, then reopening the judgment would be nothing more than ‘an empty exercise.’” The court further noted that procedural “barriers to relief count in this analysis.” Pursuant to Buck, “it would be ‘inappropriate’ to balance the equities in favor of granting a Rule 60(b)(6) motion when an insuperable procedural barrier would render the underlying claim ‘unreviewable’ in the reopened § 2255 motion.” The court additionally concluded it was not clear that the equities ran in West’s favor. Because he did not “raise the Apprendi claim in the trial court or on direct appeal, the claim is procedurally defaulted—indeed, doubly so.” And it determined that he “could not cure the appellate default by claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.” He also could not show “actual innocence.” Further, the court rejected his claims that (1) the government waived or forfeited the statute of limitations defense; (2) that his claim related back to his § 2255 motion; (3) that equitable estoppel, fraud on the court, or fraudulent concealment barred the defense; and (4) that equitable tolling applied. His claim that his new § 2255 motion would not be untimely due to a compassionate release order also failed because that “order did not create a new final judgment and, in any case, [it] was reversed.” Affirmed.