United States v. Cherisson

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Cherisson

56 F. App'x 192

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 27, 2003·No. No. 02-7893·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Cherisson appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and [193]*193order and find no reversible error. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir.1991). The claims Cherisson raised in his Rule 60(b) motion are foreclosed by the mandate rule. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

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

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Cherisson appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and [193]*193order and find no reversible error. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm’rs, 945 F.2d 716, 723 (4th Cir.1991). The claims Cherisson raised in his Rule 60(b) motion are foreclosed by the mandate rule. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir.1993). 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.

United States v. Cherisson, 56 F. App'x 192 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

56 F. App'x 192 (United States v. Cherisson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related