By: dmc-admin//September 17, 2001//
“Ruth asserted in his Rule 33 motion that his new evidence of Countryside Fragrances’s legitimate and independent existence supported his claim of innocence. He did not argue that the government violated Brady by failing to disclose this information, nor did he assert that the existence of this information rendered his sentence excessive or called into question the jurisdiction of the court. If he had raised those arguments – all listed in sec. 2255 para. 1 as grounds for a collateral attack – the district court’s resolution would have been correct. Instead, Ruth’s bona fide Rule 33 motion is not properly characterized as one under sec. 2255. His latest filing is therefore his first collateral attack under sec. 2255, and the district court should have addressed it on its merits.”
Vacated and remanded.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Tinder, J., Wood, J.