Opinion ID: 6499522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void. Callon Petroleum Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 351 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2003). “Rule 60(b)(4) motions leave no margin for consideration of the district court’s discretion as the judgments themselves are by definition either legal nullities or not.” Brumfield v. La. State Bd. of Educ., 806 F.3d 289, 296 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)). Rule 60(b)(5) motions, in contrast, “are directed to the sound discretion of the district court, and its denial of relief upon such motion will be set aside on appeal only for abuse of that discretion.” Id. (quoting Seven Elves v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981)). “A district court abuses its discretion if it: (1) relies on clearly erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the facts.” Texas v. Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Tex., 918 F.3d 440, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en 4 Case: 21-10985 Document: 00516391610 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/12/2022 No. 21-10985 banc)). This court reviews de novo “any questions of law underlying the district court’s decision.” Id. at 447 (quoting Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 2015)).