Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Walker, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Lamont Walker's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviews the denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. It concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court cannot review the merits of the underlying order, only whether the district court properly denied the Rule 60(b) motion. It dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-09-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6364

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Lamont Walker's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviews the denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. It concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court cannot review the merits of the underlying order, only whether the district court properly denied the Rule 60(b) motion. It dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    United States v. Walker, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kevin Lamont Walker's Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence. The appellate court reviews the denial of Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. It concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker's Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court cannot review the merits of the underlying order, only whether the district court properly denied the Rule 60(b) motion. It dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6364

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN LAMONT WALKER,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Rebecca Beach Smith,
    District Judge. (4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1)

    Submitted:

    August 26, 2010

    Decided:

    September 1, 2010

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kevin Lamont Walker, Appellant Pro Se.


    Howard Jacob Zlotnick,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin
    courts

    order

    Lamont
    denying

    Walker
    his

    seeks

    Fed.

    R.

    to

    appeal

    Civ.

    P.

    the

    60(b)

    district

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of that courts denial of his 3582 motion.


    This

    Court

    reviews

    the

    denial

    of

    motion

    for

    relief

    judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion.

    from
    MLC

    Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277


    (4th Cir. 2008).

    This Court may not review the merits of the

    underlying order, but instead may only review the denial of the
    motion with respect to the grounds set forth in Rule 60(b)."
    Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Having

    reviewed

    district

    court

    did

    not

    district

    court

    order

    the

    record,

    we

    conclude

    abuse

    its

    discretion

    denying

    the

    R.

    60(b)

    and

    that

    the

    affirm

    the

    motion.

    United

    States v. Walker, No. 4:05-cr-00005-RBS-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 12,


    2010). We
    legal
    before

    dispense

    contentions
    the

    court

    with

    oral

    argument

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    because

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like