United States v. Charles Pyne

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Pyne appeals the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, which sought
vacatur of the court’s October 2012 order denying his motions
for expedited relief and transfer. Although we typically review
the denial of a Rule 60(b) 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 to the grounds set forth in Rule 60(b).”
MLC Auto., LLC, 532 F.3d at 277 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the
district court did not reversibly err in denying 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 & Const., Inc., 167 F.3d 861, 871 (4th Cir. 1999)
2
(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 a manner
inconsistent with due process of law” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Pyne, No. 8:04-cr-00018-AW-3 (D. Md. Feb. 8,
2013). We deny Pyne’s 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
3