US v. Abdullah Rasool Shakoor

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:97-cr-00064-BO-1,7:14-cv-00130-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999643986]. Mailed to: Shakoor. [14-7658]

Appeal: 14-7658

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7658

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ABDULLAH RASOOL SHAKOOR, a/k/a Lee McDonald,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:97-cr-00064-BO-1; 7:14-cv-00130-BO)

Submitted:

August 4, 2015

Decided:

August 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, Appellant Pro Se.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Carolina, for Appellee.

Jennifer P.
Raleigh, North

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7658

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Abdullah Rasool Shakoor appeals the district court’s order
denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)(4)

motion,

which

sought

vacatur of the court’s April 23, 2008 order construing his March
2007

letter

as

a

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

motion.

Although we typically review the denial of a Rule 60(b) 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
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 to the
grounds set forth in Rule 60(b).”

MLC Auto., LLC, 532 F.3d at

277 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district
court did not reversibly err in denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion
because none of the criteria for granting the motion was met in
this case.
2005).
United

See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412-13 (4th Cir.

Accordingly,
States

v.

we

affirm

Shakoor,

No.
2

the

district

court’s

7:97-cr-00064-BO-1

order.

(E.D.N.C.

Appeal: 14-7658

Doc: 13

Oct. 24,
facts

2014).

and

materials

Filed: 08/20/2015

legal
before

We

dispense

Pg: 3 of 3

with

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3