Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2 views

    United States v. Charles Pyne, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Pyne's motion under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate an earlier order denying his motions for expedited relief and transfer. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion de novo and found that none of the criteria for granting relief under Rule 60(b)(4) as the judgment being void were met in this case. Specifically, the district court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties and did not violate due process. Therefore, the district court properly denied Pyne's motion to vacate the earlier order.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    United States v. Charles Pyne, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Pyne's motion under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate an earlier order denying his motions for expedited relief and transfer. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion de novo and found that none of the criteria for granting relief under Rule 60(b)(4) as the judgment being void were met in this case. Specifically, the district court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties and did not violate due process. Therefore, the district court properly denied Pyne's motion to vacate the earlier order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-07-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6248

    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 Charles Pyne's motion under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate an earlier order denying his motions for expedited relief and transfer. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion de novo and found that none of the criteria for granting relief under Rule 60(b)(4) as the judgment being void were met in this case. Specifically, the district court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties and did not violate due process. Therefore, the district court properly denied Pyne's motion to vacate the earlier order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views3 pages

    United States v. Charles Pyne, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Charles Pyne's motion under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate an earlier order denying his motions for expedited relief and transfer. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion de novo and found that none of the criteria for granting relief under Rule 60(b)(4) as the judgment being void were met in this case. Specifically, the district court that rendered the judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties and did not violate due process. Therefore, the district court properly denied Pyne's motion to vacate the earlier order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6248

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES PYNE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Alexander Williams, Jr., District
    Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-AW-3)

    Submitted:

    June 19, 2013

    Decided:

    July 15, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Pyne, Appellant


    Assistant United States
    Appellee.

    Pro Se.
    Attorney,

    Barbara Suzanne Skalla,


    Greenbelt, Maryland, for

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles
    denying

    his

    Fed.

    Pyne
    R.

    appeals
    Civ.

    the

    P.

    district

    60(b)(4)

    courts

    motion,

    order

    which

    sought

    vacatur of the courts October 2012 order denying his motions


    for expedited relief and transfer.
    the

    denial

    of

    Rule

    60(b)

    Although we typically review

    motion

    for

    abuse

    of

    discretion,

    MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir.
    2008), where a motion seeks vacatur of an order or judgment on
    the basis that it is void under Rule 60(b)(4), our review is de
    novo.

    Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998);

    see Compton v. Alton S.S. Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 96, 107 (4th Cir.
    1979) (stating that motions under [Rule] 60(b) on any ground
    other than that the judgment is void are reviewed for abuse of
    discretion).

    In ruling on an appeal from the denial of a Rule

    60(b) motion, we may not review the merits of the underlying


    order, but instead may only review the denial of the motion
    with

    respect

    MLC Auto.,

    to

    LLC,

    the
    532

    grounds
    F.3d

    at

    set
    277

    forth

    in

    (internal

    Rule

    60(b).

    quotation

    marks

    omitted).
    Having
    district

    court

    reviewed
    did

    not

    the

    record,

    reversibly

    err

    we

    conclude

    in

    denying

    that

    the

    the

    Rule

    60(b)(4) motion because none of the three criteria for granting


    the motion was met in this case.

    See Eberhardt v. Integrated

    Design

    861,

    &

    Const.,

    Inc.,

    167

    F.3d
    2

    871

    (4th

    Cir.

    1999)

    (stating that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) only if


    the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject
    matter,

    or

    of

    the

    parties,

    or

    if

    it

    acted

    in

    manner

    inconsistent with due process of law (internal quotation marks


    omitted)).

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts order.

    United States v. Pyne, No. 8:04-cr-00018-AW-3 (D. Md. Feb. 8,


    2013).

    We deny Pynes motion to remand the case and 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

    You might also like