Brett C. Kimberlin v. Dewalt, No. CA-99-979-2 E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2000 . In addition, we decline to consider…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7555
BRETT C. KIMBERLIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-99-979-2)
Submitted: January 5, 2001 Decided: January 18, 2001
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Brett C. Kimberlin appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he sought
reconsideration of the court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kimberlin
v. Dewalt, No. CA-99-979-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 20, 2000). In addition,
we decline to consider the claims Kimberlin raises for the first
time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal
generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances
of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --