United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Roy W. Collins, Defendant,jeffrey A. Dickstein, Movant-appellant, 48 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 1995)
Annotate this CaseBefore TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.2
ORDER AND JUDGMENT1
Mr. Dickstein appeals the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) (4) motion to vacate the court's orders revoking his ability to appear pro hac vice in the case of United States v. Collins, No. Cr-89-45-A (W.D. Okla. 1989). By filing this motion, Mr. Dickstein improperly invoked the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to collaterally attack an order previously entered in a completed and affirmed criminal prosecution. The district court was correct in denying Mr. Dickstein's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (4) motion.
AFFIRMED.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order. 151 F.R.D. 470 (10th Cir. 1993)
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.
