6th Circuit Allows Rule 60(b) Motion to Address Unlawful Sentence Despite Gonzalez v Crosby Precedent**Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Gonzalez v Crosby decision, individuals using FRCivP 60(b) to reconsider a 2255 denial have faced significant hurdles. Typically, if a Rule 60(b) motion challenged the underlying conviction rather than an issue in the 2255 proceeding, it was treated as a second 2255 motion and sent to the Court of Appeals, where it was often dismissed.However, James West’s case has broken through this barrier. Serving a life sentence for murder-for-hire, West has faced numerous legal setbacks. His sentencing judge acknowledged errors from multiple parties, resulting in an unlawful sentence. Despite efforts, including a denied 2255 motion and a compassionate release that was later reversed by the 6th Circuit, West’s unconstitutional sentence remained.West’s Rule 60(b) motion aimed to reopen his 2255 case, focusing on the injustice and potential harm to public confidence in the judicial system. Although the Government opposed it, the 6th Circuit recognized the extraordinary circumstances presented by West’s case, which included the district court’s admission of sentencing errors and potential fraud on the court by the Government.The 6th Circuit ruled that despite the Rule 60(b) resembling a second 2255 motion, justice required it not be treated as such. Citing Gonzalez v. Crosby, the court highlighted that Rule 60(b) relief is available under extraordinary circumstances, which include the risk of injustice and undermining public confidence in the judicial process.The case has been remanded to the district court to decide on the Rule 60(b) motion, potentially paving the way for West to address his unlawful sentence.

Subheadings:** – **Background of James West’s Case** – **Challenges in Using Rule 60(b) for 2255 Reconsideration** – **6th Circuit’s Ruling on Extraordinary Circumstances**- **Bullet Points:** – West’s life sentence for murder-for-hire faced multiple legal challenges. – Rule 60(b) motion highlighted injustice and risk to public confidence. – 6th Circuit recognized extraordinary circumstances, allowing Rule 60(b) motion.