US v. Mark Pinella, No. 13-7399 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7399 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MARK PINELLA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00151-FL-1) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Pinella, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Pinella appeals the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion that challenged the court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion, in which he alleged the criminal judgment against him was void. Although the district court denied relief on the merits, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a vehicle by which Pinella may challenge his criminal judgment. United States v. O Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that criminal defendant cannot challenge orders entered in his criminal case using Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and citing United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)). Nor could Pinella have properly sought reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 authorizes reconsideration within fourteen days only to correct arithmetical, technical, or other clear error). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s denial of relief. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.