Case ID: f-appx_53/html/0246-01.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. Dirk Ameen HALL, a/k/a Luke, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7550.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 18, 2002.
    Dirk Ameen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Dirk Ameen Hall appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider a previous order dismissing Hall’s motion to vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We review the denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir.2000). Because Hall’s motion stated no viable ground for relief under the rule, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly we affirm the order of the district court. 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. 
      
       We note that we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order denying Hall’s § 2255 motion because Hall did not appeal the order within sixty days of its entry, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.2001), and the Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the time for filing an appeal. See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).