United States v. Maynard

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7915
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KENNETH MAYNARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,
District Judge. (CR-99-141)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: June 5, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Maynard, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth N. Maynard appeals the district court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and/or specific performance of
Rule 11 contract. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s order and find no reversible error. See Temkin v. Frederick
County Comm’r, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 1991). The ineffective
assistance of counsel claim Maynard raises in his Rule 60(b) motion
properly is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and he may
not circumvent the procedural requirements of that statute by
titling his pleading pursuant to Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s denial of Maynard’s Rule 60(b) motion and/or
motion for specific performance of Rule 11 contract. We dispense
with 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.
AFFIRMED
2