Opinion ID: 604685
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of the Motion for Reconsideration.

Text: 8 This court has jurisdiction to review the denial of Wallin's Motion for Reconsideration if the motion is construed as one brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment if the moving party discovers new evidence which could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(e). A rule 60(b) motion may be filed up to one year after a judgment. See Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989). 9 The new evidence introduced by Wallin to support his Rule 60(b) motion consists of two affidavits. Neither affidavit contains new evidence of the type cognizable in a 60(b) motion. Both affidavits were dated prior to the final judgment. Since the affidavits could have been submitted in a timely Rule 59(e) motion, they cannot be considered under a 60(b) motion. See Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp., 876 F.2d 702, 706 n. 2 (9th Cir.1989). 1 10 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion for Reconsideration. We AFFIRM the denial of the motion.