Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0876-01.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. Timnah RUDISILL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 12-6851.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 22, 2012.
    Decided: Aug. 27, 2012.
    Timnah K. Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timnah Rudisill appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his previously filed Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. As noted by the district court, it could not allow Rudisill to amend his Rule 60(b) motion as the motion was no longer pending. The Rule 60(b) motion had been denied in December 2008. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rudisill, Nos. 1:01-cr-00048-MR-9; 1:05-cv-00212-MR (W.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2012). 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.