UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2467
JOHN ALEXANDER, d/b/a Alexander & Company;
SCHIFFER PUBLISHING LIMITED,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
G. PAUL MODRAK,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
CHESAPEAKE, POTOMAC AND TIDEWATER BOOKS, IN-
CORPORATED, d/b/a The Washington Book Trading
Company,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-98-1595-A)
Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 23, 2001
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Paul Modrak, Appellant Pro Se. Russell James Gaspar, COHEN MOHR,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Nancy A. Rubner-Frandsen, SEIDEL, GONDA,
LAVORGNA & MONACO, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
G. Paul Modrak appeals the district court’s judgment entered
following a jury trial in this copyright infringement and breach of
contract action. On appeal, Modrak requests that we consider
additional evidence that was not presented to the district court
either at trial or in his post-trial motion for judgment as a
matter of law. Although Modrak did submit this evidence in a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, that motion was filed
after his appeal was noted in this case and, thus, is not properly
considered on appeal. Because the district court did not consider
this “newly-discovered” evidence at any point up to the entry of
the judgment appealed from, we will not analyze this evidence for
the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2