Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judy A. SIMEK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7751.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided May 3, 2001.
    
      Judy A. Simek, pro se.
    William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Gavin Alexander Corn, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Judy A. Simek appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for error coram nobis in her action to vacate her sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Simek has not appealed the underlying judgment denying her § 2255 motion, nor is it reviewable, as her notice of appeal was not filed within sixty days of the entry of that order. See Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Furthermore, because Simek’s Rule 60(b) motion raises claims attacking her sentence, it was properly construed as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp 2000). See United States v. Wilson, 901 F.2d 378, 380 (4th Cir.1990) (affirming construal of “motion coram nobis” as collateral attack on sentence under § 2255). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court dismissing Simek’s Rule 60(b) motion for writ of error coram nobis. 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.