United States Tenth Circuit

In a drug and firearm prosecution, the denial of plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion claiming that the district court erred in deciding his 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion for sentence modification without granting him an evidentiary hearing is affirmed where plaintiff's claims required authorization under section 2255(h) as a second or successive motion.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/16/2009
• Published 09/16/2009

Judges

• Before TACHA, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel