United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Anthony Cortez Jackson, Defendant-appellant, 87 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1996)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 87 F.3d 1324 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted June 11, 1996. *Decided June 14, 1996

Before: CANBY, JOHN T. NOONAN, JR. and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Federal prisoner Anthony Jackson appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, correct or set aside his sentence for possession of cocaine base.1 

"An appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up only the denial of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying judgment." Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir. 1989). We therefore confine our review to the district court's denial of Jackson's Rule 60(b) motion, which we review for abuse of discretion. Id. In his motion for reconsideration, Jackson contends for the first time that his criminal conviction should be overturned based on alleged collusion between state officials, who obtained a civil forfeiture of his assets, and federal officials, who sought his subsequent criminal conviction, thereby violating Jackson's right to be free of double jeopardy. Jackson fails, however, to argue that any of the provisions of Rule 60(b) apply to his case. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the district court's denial of Jackson's motion for reconsideration is

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Red.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

Because Jackson filed his motion for reconsideration more than ten days after the entry of judgment, we construe the motion as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). Because we affirm the denial of relief under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, we do not consider whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 applies to this appeal

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.