second or successive habe-as petitions under § 2255 ¶ 8. The Court concludes, however, that defendant’s argument is without merit. Defendant reads the language of Rule 12(b)(2) to allow a motion like the instant one to be “raised at any time,” including, defendant argues, at this stage of the proceeding, well after the conclusion of direct review. This is an improper reading of the rule. Rule 12(b)(2) provides that motions challenging an indictment based on the indictment’s purported failure to charge an offense “shall be noticed by the court at any time during the pendency of the proceedings.” The “pendency of the proceedings” for purposes of Rule 12(b)(2) concludes upon the completion of a defendant’s direct appeal. See United States v. Wolff, 241 F.3d 1055, 1056 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Rice v. United States, 132 F.Supp.2d 162, 163
holding that the final judgment was entered without jurisdiction while a nonfinal appeal was still pending holding that a notice of appeal is timely when filed before final judgment is entered by the district court holding that after final judgment was entered and defendant did not file a direct appeal the proceedings were no longer pending under rule 12b2 holding proceedings no longer pending for rule 12b2 purposes after conviction affirmed on appeal holding that an order pending divorce is not a final judgment that creates a right of appeal