Nailor v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Nailor v. United States

96 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5298

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 2 (Nailor v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nailor-v-united-states-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack