U.S. v. PINELLA, 13-7399. (2013)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20131224053
Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2013
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Mark Pinella appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion that challenged the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, in which he alleged the criminal judgment against him was void. Although the district court denied relief on the merits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Pinella may challenge his criminal judgment. United States v
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Mark Pinella appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion that challenged the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, in which he alleged the criminal judgment against him was void. Although the district court denied relief on the merits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Pinella may challenge his criminal judgment. United States v...
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Mark Pinella appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion that challenged the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, in which he alleged the criminal judgment against him was void. Although the district court denied relief on the merits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Pinella may challenge his criminal judgment. United States v. O'Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that criminal defendant cannot challenge orders entered in his criminal case using Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and citing United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). Nor could Pinella have properly sought reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 authorizes reconsideration within fourteen days only to correct arithmetical, technical, or other clear error).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
