United States v. Barlow

── United States v. Barlow ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-6693 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:22-cr-08092-SMB-7 v. MEMORANDUM* BRENDA LISA BARLOW, AKA Brenda Barlow, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Brenda Lisa Barlow appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to vacate her criminal judgment and her motion for reconsideration of that order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Barlow contends the district court erred in determining that she could not rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to vacate her criminal judgment for conspiracy to commit tampering with an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k). There was no error because the court properly concluded that Rule 60 applies only to civil actions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings[.]”). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barlow’s motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review and circumstances when reconsideration is appropriate). AFFIRMED. 2 25-6693