Opinion ID: 783829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Harris's Motion Seeking Reconsideration of the Competence Issue

Text: 169 On February 27, 2001, Harris filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the District Court's denial of his petition with respect to the competence issue. In support of this motion Harris submitted evidence that showed that Harris's trial counsel, as part of an omnibus post-trial motion, sought a competence hearing 11 days after Harris's trial ended. Harris's App. 152. The District Court denied Harris's motion, holding that the [v]ague post-trial assertions by defense counsel contained in the motion were not relevant to an assessment of whether the District Court erred by failing to order a competence hearing during the trial. Harris's App. 155 (emphasis added). 170 Harris argues that the District Court erred by denying his motion for reconsideration. We disagree. This Court reviews a District Court's denial of a motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Malik, 293 F.3d at 561. We find no error, let alone an abuse of discretion, in the District Court's denial of Harris's motion, because Harris has not presented any persuasive reason why a request for a hearing in a post-trial motion is relevant to an assessment of the correctness of a ruling by the District Court during trial.