Case ID: f-appx_13/html/0008-01.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

Xin Hang CHEN, Appellant, v. Lawrence W. RAZ, Riggs Bank, et al., Appellees.
    No. 01-7033.
    United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
    July 2, 2001.
    Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge; WILLIAMS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
   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.