Violence Coal., 542 F.3d 794, 796-97 (10th Cir.2008). In its June 21, 2011 order, the district court carefully examined the factual background of the case against each of the grounds for relief cited by Mr. Leo and concluded that the motion should be denied. We affirm for substantially the same reasons articulated by the district court. Mr. Leo cited Rule 60(b)(1), which provides that the district court may grant relief from a judgment on the grounds of mistake. But as the court pointed out, “the ‘mistake’ which [Mr. Leo] claims— that he has only recently realized that he sought a different position than what he alleged in his complaint—is not the type of mistake contemplated by Rule 60(b)(1),” R. Vol. 17 at 4, citing Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Leo next argued that he was entitled to
holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal holding in the context of mistake of law or fact that relief should be granted only when enforcement of the sale would impose an oppressive burden on the party seeking vacation holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation holding that rule 60b1 relied is available only where 1 a party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without authority from a party or 2 where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order holding that bankruptcy is no exception to the due process principle that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party to or to which he has not been made a party by service of process internal quotation marks omitted