Pickering-George v. Attorney General of the United States

285 F. App'x 762
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided July 25, 2008·No. No. 08-5108·Published

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 and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 26, 2008 be affirmed, as the court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b). See generally Browder v. Director, Illinois Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); see also Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C.Cir.1995); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir'. Rule 41.

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

Pickering-George v. Attorney General of the United States, 285 F. App'x 762 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

285 F. App'x 762 (Pickering-George v. Attorney General of the United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related