United States v. Mark Corrigan ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK CORRIGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00128-H-3)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 26, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Corrigan, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Philip Swaim, Assistant
United States Attorney, Thomas Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Corrigan appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion, ∗ in which he alleged
the 1998 criminal judgment against him was subject to vacatur
due to fraud. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
provide a vehicle by which to challenge a criminal judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, 81; United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d
1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (stating that “Rule
60(b) simply does not provide relief from judgment in a criminal
case”). Nor could Corrigan have properly sought reconsideration
under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 33(b) (authorizing motion for new trial no later than
three years after guilty verdict); 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
∗
Although Corrigan did not clearly identify the authority
for his motion in district court, he clarifies in his informal
brief that he sought relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3).
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3