Case ID: f-appx_521/html/0226-01.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. Shontonio L. WITHERSPOON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6329.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 23, 2013.
    Decided: May 29, 2013.
    Shontonio L. Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Módica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shontonio L. Witherspoon appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the criminal judgment entered in his case in 2010. Rule 60, however, is applicable only in civil cases; it is not a mechanism available to reopen or overturn a criminal judgment. See United States v. Goodwyn, 696 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion). And in any event, it is evident from the record that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wither-spoon’s motion. See Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir.2011).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.