under an abuse of discretion standard.”); Amundsen v. Jones, 533 F.3d 1192, 1197 (10th Cir.2008) (“We review a district court’s application of its local rules for an abuse of discretion.”). Rule 83.5 of the Local Rules of the District of New Mexico provides: “A party who is represented by an attorney may not personally make any filings, other than a notice of appeal, or represent himself or herself unless otherwise ordered.” The Dzulas do not dispute they were represented by counsel at the time they filed their pro se motion for reconsideration; nor do they claim they obtained leave of the court to file their motion pro se. The district court has considerable latitude in interpreting and applying its local rules. See Bylin v. Billings, 568 F.3d 1224, 1230 n. 7 (10th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). We perceive no abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED.
recognizing defense counsel must have wide latitude in making tactical decisions holding that trial court retains wide latitude and considerable discretion to limit crossexamination internal quotation marks omitted recognizing the wide latitude district courts enjoy in interpreting and administering their own rules recognizing district courts wide latitude in imposing supervised release conditions recognizing district courts wide range of discretion in setting amount of rule 11 sanctions