any substantial rights that would be prejudiced if the judgment is set aside. Thus, balancing the equities of this case, we find that allowing Rochester Associates to obtain such a windfall without according MIF a hearing on the merits of its claim outweighs the policy favoring finality of judgments. In other words, our sense of justice is offended more by permitting this judgment to stand than by setting aside the judgment in favor of a determination of the merits of MIF’s claim. Rochester Associates contends that a mistaken belief that a settlement had been reached is not the type of mistake for which Rule 60(b) relief is warranted, but we disagree. Ordinarily, attorney carelessness or neglect is not cognizable under Rule 60(b). See Robinson v. Armontrout, 8 F.3d 6, 7 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). MIF is not seeking either to enforce or to
holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief holding that rule 60b bars sua sponte relief holding that rule 60b cannot provide any relief from the district courts judgment on an 18 usc  3582 motion because  3582 actions are criminal in nature and rule 60b is applicable only to civil proceedings holding that defenses under rule 60b may be waived