Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Ramirez, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Manuel Ramirez appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion because Ramirez provided no valid basis for Rule 60(b) relief. The Fourth Circuit also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying § 2255 ruling, as Ramirez did not appeal that decision within the required 60 days.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-11-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7198

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Manuel Ramirez appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion because Ramirez provided no valid basis for Rule 60(b) relief. The Fourth Circuit also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying § 2255 ruling, as Ramirez did not appeal that decision within the required 60 days.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Ramirez, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Manuel Ramirez appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no abuse of discretion because Ramirez provided no valid basis for Rule 60(b) relief. The Fourth Circuit also noted it lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying § 2255 ruling, as Ramirez did not appeal that decision within the required 60 days.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7198

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MANUEL A. RAMIREZ, a/k/a Manny,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CR-00-1-3, CA-02-25-3)

    Submitted:

    October 29, 2002

    Decided:

    November 14, 2002

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Manuel A. Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari,


    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Manuel A. Ramirez appeals the district courts order denying
    his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its order denying
    relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

    2255 (2000).*

    We

    review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.


    NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995).

    Because

    Ramirezs motion stated no viable ground for relief under the rule,
    we find no abuse of discretion.
    of the district court.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    Accordingly, we affirm the order

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    We note that we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying


    order denying Ramirezs 2255 motion because Ramirez did not
    appeal the order within sixty days of its entry, see Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1)(B); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th
    Cir. 2001), and Ramirezs 60(b) motion did not toll the time for
    filing an appeal.
    See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept of
    Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978).
    2

    You might also like