Parham v. Pepsico Inc

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1261
KARON ANN PARHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PEPSICO, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-95-307-5-BR)
Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karon Ann Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Louis B. Meyer, III, POYNER &
SPRUILL, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Karon Ann Parham appeals the district court’s orders denying
her motions to accept newly discovered evidence and for entry of
default judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s orders and find no reversible error. We affirm the denial
of Parham’s motions because the motion to accept newly discovered
evidence was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and the district
court lacked jurisdiction to reopen default judgment proceedings
after entering final judgment. We deny Parham’s motion for oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process. We deny Parham’s motions for sanctions,
to produce evidence, and command attendance at hearing. We grant
Pepsico’s second amended motion for sanctions under Fed. R. App. P.
38 for filing a frivolous appeal, but decline to grant Pepsico’s
request for an order enjoining Parham from filing any future
actions against Pepsico in federal court. Instead of particularized
fees and costs, we order Parham to pay sanctions in the amount of
$500. See In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943, 945 (4th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
2