Nailor v. United States

96 F. App'x 2
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided May 13, 2004·No. No. 03-5298·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 30, 2003 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion, see Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), as appellant must challenge his criminal conviction through a motion to vacate his sentence filed in the sentencing court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nailor v. United States, 96 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

96 F. App'x 2 (Nailor v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nailor v. United States
543 U.S. 966 (Supreme Court, 2004)