2013 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-25-2013 

# J o se C a r don a v

. W a r de n Lew i sbur g
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-3172

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2013 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" J os e C a r don a v

. W a r de n L e w i s bur g " (2013). 2013 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 37. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2013/371



### ALD

- 004 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 3172

___________ JOSE CRISTOBAL CARDONA , Appellant

v. WARDEN LEWISBURG

_____________________________ On Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 4

- 10

- cv - 02269 ) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley

_____________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 10, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : October 25, 2013)2 

### _________ OPINION

________ PER CURIAM Jose Cardona, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the D istrict Court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(2). For the following reasons, we will summarily affirm. 1 

### Cardona’s habeas petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was denied on July 6, 2011. Since then, he has attempted to reopen the judgment at least five times. This appeal stems from his sixth unsuccessful attempt, filed on April 15, 2013. He relied on Rule 60(b)(2), claiming that he had newly discovered evidence that would warrant relief from the District Court’s order denying his habeas petition. Motions brought under Rule 60(b)(2) must be filed “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Cardona’s motio n was filed nearly two years after the entry of judgment, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying it as untimely. 2 

### See Brown v. Philadelphia

1 

### We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily affirm the decision of the District Court if no substantial question is presented on appeal. 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

2 

### As he did in the District Court, Cardona argues that his previous appeal to us tolled the one - year deadline. As the District Court explained, (Dkt. No. 42, p. 4), it did not. See Hancock Indus. v. Schaeffer , 811 F.2d 225, 239 (3d Cir. 1987). The District Court also determined that Cardona’s motion was meritless, an issue we need not discuss, given its untimeliness.3



### Hous. Auth. , 350 F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 2003). There being no substantial question present ed on appeal, we will summ arily affi rm.