The opinion of the court was delivered by: John F. Keenan, United States District Judge
ORDER & MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is incarcerated pro se petitioner Irving Mason's ("Mason") motion to vacate his sentence and conviction pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Mason also asks the Court to appoint counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied in its entirety.
On April 18, 2001, the Court sentenced Mason to 30 years' imprisonment for conducting and participating in the affairs of a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") (18 U.S.C. § 1962), RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), conspiracy to commit robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951), attempted robbery (18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 1952), possessing a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), and possessing ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). On November 21, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. Mason subsequently petitioned this Court to vacate his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a request the Court denied on August 9, 2005. On October 6, 2005, the Court denied Mason's motion for a certificate of appealability from that decision.
Mason now asks the Court to vacate his sentence and conviction pursuant to Rule 60(b) or, alternatively, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a) on the following grounds: (1) "[T]he government failed to allege and/or establish the required Jurisdiction[al] nexus for a Hobbs Act Prosecution"; (2) "The Government failed to establish federal jurisdiction by failing to provide the required elements of the [charged] offense for the jury's consideration"; (3) "The jury instruction impermissibly removed the interstate commerce element [of] the Hobbs Act from the jury's consideration"; and (4) "The misapplication of the 'de minimis' effect standard of review, as well as its misinterpretation." (Pet'r's Br. table of contents.)
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...