Opinion ID: 2671262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Orlando do Campo

Text: On July 27, 2011, Felier filed a timely notice of appeal from the dismissal of the amended federal habeas petition and a motion for the district court to appoint counsel for the appeal. 8 The court appointed attorney Orlando do Campo to represent Lugo and terminated Felier’s representation. On February 3, 2012, attorney do Campo filed a Rule 60(b) motion. The Rule 60(b) motion and its supporting documents brought to the district court’s attention, for the first time, specific and detailed information about Wasson’s conduct and Lugo’s troubled relationship with him. After briefing and without an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion on June 12, 2012. 8 On August 8, 2011, Lugo filed a pro se motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which the district court denied as untimely. We do not review the district court’s denial of the Rule 59(e) motion because it is beyond the scope of the COA in this case. See Murray v. United States, 145 F.3d 1249, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (explaining that our appellate review is limited to the issues specified in the COA). 13 Case: 11-13439 Date Filed: 04/24/2014 Page: 14 of 53