United States v. Mark Pinella , 548 F. App'x 948 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7399
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARK PINELLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00151-FL-1)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Pinella, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2