[UNPUBLISHED]

Arthur D’Amario appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. D’Amario sought relief from the district court’s underlying judgment, which he did not timely appeal, denying his third 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as abusive, and denying his motion for sanctions against the government attorney. In support of Rule 60(b) relief, D’Amario argued he had been unable to obtain a transcript that he needed to support his petition until after judgment was entered. However, we agree with the district court that the transcript would have made no difference in the disposition of D’Amario’s claims and therefore was not newly discovered evidence that warranted Rule 60(b) relief.

We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Rule 60(b) relief. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny as moot D’Amario’s motion for summary disposition.

A true copy.