
    Nicholas J. QUEEN, Petitioner-Appellant v. T.C. OUTLAW, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 15-41338 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed August 12, 2016
    Nicholas J. Queen, Pro Se.
    Michael Wayne Lockhart, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, Respondent-Appellee.
    Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nicholas J. Queen, federal prisoner # 29623-037, is serving a 562-month term of imprisonment for his convictions for bank robbery and related offenses. In 2007, Queen filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the calculation of his sentence. This court affirmed the judgment of the district court. Queen v. Outlaw, 393 Fed.Appx. 176, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2010). In September and October 2014, Queen filed three identical motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the judgment denying his § 2241 petition. The district court denied the motions on the grounds that it had no authority to reconsider this court’s decision affirming the denial of § 2241 relief, the motions were not timely, and they lacked merit. Queen now appeals the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions.

Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment for “any ... reason that justifies relief.” Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Stephens, 731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). Although the one-year filing period does not apply to Rule 60(b)(6) motions, such motions “must be made within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Crv. P. 60(c)(1). Queen did not meet this standard. See In re Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Queen has not shown the existence of “extraordinary circumstances,” as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     