litigated issue was whether a drafting mistake had occurred in a trust document); Chilson v. Metro. Transit Auth., 796 F.2d 69 (5th Cir.1986) (same, where the previously litigated issue was whether an employee had been unlawfully discharged). What matters is whether the movant presents new evidence to support the motion, in addition to satisfying the other criteria of Rule 60(b)(2). See Waddell, 329 F.3d at 1309. By applying the wrong legal standard to Wortley’s Rule 60(b)(2) motion, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion. See Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co., 411 F.3d at 1330. Even if the bankruptcy court’s statements can be construed as applying the standards of Rule 60(b)(2), it made clear errors of judgment and abused its discretion in applying those standards. See id. (<HOLDING>). For example, the bankruptcy court’s statement
recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision holding that a court abuses its discretion by making clear errors of judgment holding that sentencing court abuses its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law