Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to act in these circumstances. But the district court’s interpretation of Rule 60(b)(6) is contrary to established law. Rule 60(b)(6) permits a court to grant relief from a final judgment for “any other reason justifying relief____” (Emphasis added.) The courts have universally interpreted “other” to mean other than the reasons specified in subsections 60(b)(l)-60(b)(5), see, e.g., Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614-15, 69 S.Ct. 384, 390-91, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949), and it is generally accepted that cases clearly falling under Rule 60(b)(1) cannot be brought within the more generous Rule 60(b)(6) in order to escape the former’s one year time limitation. See, e.g., Gulf Coast Building and Supply Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 460 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>); see also Wright & Miller, 11 Federal Practice 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a motion that alleged rule 60b1 grounds could not be treated as a rule 60b6 motion in the absence of allegations of aggravating circumstances (B) holding that when the district court mistakenly ordered prejudgment interest and a motion to amend was made more than one year after entry of judgment no relief was available under rule 60b6 because rule 60b1 clearly applied (C) holding that a motion brought under rule 60b6 two years after the district courts judgment was untimely where the reason for the attack upon that judgment was available for attack upon the original judgment (D) holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure (E) holding the motion was more appropriately analyzed under rule 60b1 because the district court made a mistake when it determined that abdurrahmans claim was not exhausted in state court
Output (English): holding the motion was more appropriately analyzed under rule 60b1 because the district court made a mistake when it determined that abdurrahmans claim was not exhausted in state court