Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rogers v. United States

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

July 15, 2015

BRIAN KEITH ROGERS, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER

FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on consideration of Petitioner's motion to extend his time to file a response to this Court's order dismissing his § 2255 motion for failure to state any meritorious claims for relief, (Doc. No. 8), and his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his § 2255 motion. (Doc. No. 9).

A. Motion for extension of time

On May 29, 2015, this Court entered an order dismissing Petitioner's § 2255 motion and the Clerk entered judgment that same day. In his motion for extension of time, Petitioner contends that the Court should enlarge the 28-day time period "pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)." ( Id., Doc. No. 8 at 1). Presumably, Petitioner is referring to the 28-day window in which he may file a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); however Rule 6(b)(2) is clear that a "court must not extend the time to act under" Rule 59(e). As Petitioner's motion for extension of time was plainly filed outside of the 28-day time period applicable to a motion under Rule 59(e), his motion will be denied.

B. Motion for reconsideration

Petitioner has also filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court will consider under the provisions of Rule 60(b) which provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.