US v. Charles Pyne, No. 13-6248 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6248 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES PYNE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:04-cr-00018-AW-3) Submitted: June 19, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Pyne, Appellant Assistant United States Appellee. Pro Se. Attorney, Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles denying his Fed. Pyne R. appeals Civ. the P. district 60(b)(4) court s motion, order which sought vacatur of the court s October 2012 order denying his motions for expedited relief and transfer. the denial of a Rule 60(b) Although we typically review motion for abuse of discretion, MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008), where a motion seeks vacatur of an order or judgment on the basis that it is void under Rule 60(b)(4), our review is de novo. Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998); see Compton v. Alton S.S. Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 96, 107 (4th Cir. 1979) (stating that motions under [Rule] 60(b) on any ground other than that the judgment is void are reviewed for abuse of discretion). In ruling on an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, we may not review the merits of the underlying order, but instead may only review the denial of the motion with respect MLC Auto., to LLC, the 532 grounds F.3d at set 277 forth in (internal Rule 60(b). quotation marks omitted). Having district court reviewed did not the record, reversibly err we conclude in that denying the the Rule 60(b)(4) motion because none of the three criteria for granting the motion was met in this case. See Eberhardt v. Integrated Design 861, & Const., Inc., 167 F.3d 2 871 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if it acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. United States v. Pyne, No. 8:04-cr-00018-AW-3 (D. Md. Feb. 8, 2013). We deny Pyne s motion to remand the case and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
