United States v. Matthews

3 F. App'x 136

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Barry Lewis Matthews seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion challenging the district court’s prior denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error in its determination that Matthews’ motion for reconsideration was untimely under Rule 60(b). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Matthews, No. CA-96-1007-07 (W.D.Va. Nov. 21, 2000). 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.