Xin Hang Chen v. Raz

D.C. Circuit

Xin Hang Chen v. Raz

13 F. App'x 8

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 2001

DocketNo. 01-7033

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. App'x 8 (Xin Hang Chen v. Raz) 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

Xin Hang Chen v. Raz, 13 F. App'x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

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 the appellant, and the supplement thereto. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the February 6, 2001 order of the district court, denying appellant’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its accompanying memorandum opinion. See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion may be overturned only if the district court abused its discretion).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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 the appellant, and the supplement thereto. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the February 6, 2001 order of the district court, denying appellant’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, be affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its accompanying memorandum opinion. See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion may be overturned only if the district court abused its discretion).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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)

13 F. App'x 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xin-hang-chen-v-raz-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack