United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Earl Verlo Pilkenton, Defendant-appellant, 841 F.2d 1123 (4th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseEarl Verlo Pilkenton, appellant pro se.
Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, for appellee.
Before DONALD RUSSELL, WIDENER and K.K. HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Earl Verlo Pilkenton, a federal inmate, appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision not to disturb its prior ruling. See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310 (4th Cir. 1982). Pilkenton in his Rule 60(b) motion failed to present sufficient grounds to justify reconsideration of the final judgment.
Because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively, we dispense with oral argument.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
