Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that the use of Rule 60(b) to correct a court’s own mistakes of law was much more efficient than requiring an aggrieved party to appeal. Id. at 531. The panel also cited with approval the recommendation from Moore’s Federal Practice that Rule 60(b)(1) motions not be permitted past the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, thereby preventing Rule 60(b)(1) from becoming a way to assert an otherwise time-barred appeal. Id. (citing Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 60.23(3-4), at 239 (1955)). Although some circuits have resisted an expansive use of Rule 60(b) to correct the court’s mistakes of law, see Silk v. Sandoval, 435 F.2d 1266, 1267-68 (1st Cir.1971), Judge Friendly’s approach has remained the law of this circuit. See Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 670 (2d Cir.1977); see also id. (<HOLDING>); see generally 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear period begins to run after the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari has expired (B) holding that rule 60b1 motion may not be brought after time for appeal has run (C) holding that motions for relief from judgment or order brought under federal rule of civil procedure 60b1 provide means for a district court to correct legal errors by the court internal citation omitted (D) holding that district court abused its discretion in denying rule 60b1 motion without conducting equitable analysis (E) 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
Output (English): 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