Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Georgacarakos v. United States, 95-1172 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-1172
Filed: Nov. 29, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Circuit Judges.________________ _________________, Assistant United States Attorney, on Memorandum for Summary, Disposition, for appellee.judgment filed under Fed.presenting his claims in support of the 2255 motion.supposed fraud took place.appellant refers to the transcript of his trial.
USCA1 Opinion









November 29, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1172

PETER N. GEORGACARAKOS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Peter N. Georgacarakos on brief pro se. ______________________
Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose, ________________ _________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on Memorandum for Summary
Disposition, for appellee.


____________________


____________________


















Per Curiam. Appellant Peter N. Georgacarakos ___________

appeals from the denial of his motion for relief from

judgment filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

"[T]he treatment of a Rule 60(b) motion is

committed to the discretion of the district court and may be

reversed only upon a finding of an abuse of that discretion."

Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez, 853 F.2d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 1988). __________ _____________

We do not review the merits of the underlying judgment. Id. ___

Because appellant claims that the government

engaged in fraud in opposing his motion to vacate his

sentence, see 28 U.S.C. 2255, we treat the motion for ___

relief from judgment as having been filed under Rule

60(b)(3). This Rule allows such relief for "fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party."

To prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), appellant must show that the

alleged fraud prevented him from "fully and fairly"

presenting his claims in support of the 2255 motion. See ___

In re M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1987). _________________

Fraud can only have this effect when a party had no

knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations at the time the ________________

supposed fraud took place. Ojeda-Toro, 853 F.2d at 29. In __________________________ __________

support of his claim that the government committed fraud by

submitting the affidavit of appellant's trial counsel,

appellant refers to the transcript of his trial. "Even where

















misrepresentations are made during a litigation, it is not an

abuse of discretion to deny relief to the losing party under

Rule 60(b)(3), where the party had access to accurate

information." 7 J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore's Federal _______________

Practice 60.24[5], at 90 (2d ed. Supp. 1994-95) (footnote ________

omitted). Because appellant had access to the trial

transcript during the course of the 2255 proceedings, he

was not prevented from fully presenting his case. See In re ___ _____

M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d at 1405. ___________

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district ______

court. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___































-3-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer