Case Name: John ALEXANDER, d/b/a Alexander & Company; Schiffer Publishing Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. G. Paul MODRAK, Defendant-Appellant, and Chesapeake, Potomac and Tidewater Books, Incorporated, d/b/a The Washington Book Trading Company, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-23
Citations: 2 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 99-2467
Parties: John ALEXANDER, d/b/a Alexander & Company; Schiffer Publishing Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. G. Paul MODRAK, Defendant-Appellant, and Chesapeake, Potomac and Tidewater Books, Incorporated, d/b/a The Washington Book Trading Company, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 2
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
John ALEXANDER, d/b/a Alexander & Company; Schiffer Publishing Limited, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. G. Paul MODRAK, Defendant-Appellant, and Chesapeake, Potomac and Tidewater Books, Incorporated, d/b/a The Washington Book Trading Company, Defendant.
No. 99-2467.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 18, 2001.
Decided Jan. 23, 2001.
G. Paul Modrak, pro se. Russell James Gaspar, Cohen Mohr, L.L.P., Washington, DC; Nancy A. Rubner Frandsen, Seidel, Gonda, Lavorgna & Monaco, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for appellees.
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
G. Paul Modrak appeals the district court's judgment entered following a jury trial in this copyright infringement and breach of contract action. On appeal, Modrak requests that we consider additional evidence that was not presented to the district court either at trial or in his post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law. Although Modrak did submit this evidence in a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, that motion was filed after his appeal was noted in this case and, thus, is not properly considered on appeal. Because the district court did not consider this "newly-discovered" evidence at any point up to the entry of the judgment appealed from, we will not analyze this evidence for the first time on appeal. 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.