UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7093
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD DENNIS BERNIER, JR.,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:08-cr-00022-REM-JSK-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011
Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Dennis Bernier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald
Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Dennis Bernier, Jr., pled guilty to one count
of distributing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (2006). He was sentenced in May 2009 to
forty-six months’ imprisonment. Bernier did not file a direct
appeal. In April 2010, Bernier filed a motion, styled as a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion, in which he challenged the $4000
fine the court imposed as part of his sentence. The district
court denied the motion, and Bernier appeals.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a
vehicle by which Bernier may challenge his criminal judgment.
See United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281, 289 (5th Cir. 1999)
(stating that a criminal defendant cannot challenge orders
entered in his criminal case using Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b));
United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998)
(per curiam) (holding that a defendant cannot challenge criminal
forfeiture orders under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Nor could Bernier have properly sought reconsideration under the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v.
Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
3530 (2010) (holding that Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 authorizes
reconsideration within fourteen days only to correct
arithmetical, technical, or other clear error).
2
We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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
3