Opinion ID: 168027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: r ule 60(b) m o tio n

Text: M r. Kokoski’s subsequent motion is properly construed as a motion under Rule 60(b). See Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir. 2006) (“W hether a motion is construed as a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion depends upon the time in which the motion is filed. If a motion is served within ten days of the rendition of judgment, the motion ordinarily will fall under Rule 59(e). If the motion is served after that time it falls under Rule 60(b).” (internal quotation marks omitted)). W e generally review the denial of a motion under Rule 60(b) only for abuse of discretion See Amoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 231 F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir. 2000). The exception is motions under Rule 60(b)(4) alleging that the underlying judgment is void; those we review de novo. See id. M r. Kokoski does not state the specific grounds on which he seeks relief under Rule 60(b). His argument amounts to a contention that the merit of his underlying challenge to his convictions renders all contrary conclusions by any court void. He also reiterates -5- his contention that § 2255 is an inadequate remedy because his motion under that section was not decided in his favor. To the extent that he argues that the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 application is void, his argument lacks legal or factual merit, and we reject it under any standard of review. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that M r. Kokoski failed to assert any other basis for relief under Rule 60(b). The court was free to conclude that none of M r. Kokoski’s arguments suggested “exceptional circumstances” warranting relief under Rule 60(b). See Allender, 439 F.3d at 1242 (“[R]elief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).