United States of America v. Abdullah Rasool Shakoor, a/k/a Lee McDonald

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Jennifer P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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. See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412-13 (4th Cir.
2005). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
United States v. Shakoor, No. 7:97-cr-00064-BO-1 (E.D.N.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Oct. 24, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --