party moves for relief on the ground that the judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4). Hukill v. Okla. Native Am. Domes ief under Rule 60(b)(2) on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The district court explained that Mr. Leo’s “ ‘newly discovered’ evidence ... [a 2007 advertisement in the Kansas City Star] is completely irrelevant because he did not respond to the 2007 advertisement when he applied for a position at Garmin. Rather, he responded to a blind email from [a recruiter] relating to software engineering opportunities at Garmin.” R. Vol. 17 at 5. Because the “newly discovered” evidence was immaterial, the district court correctly determined that Mr. Leo was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2). See Zurich N. Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (brackets omitted). Last, Mr. Leo argued under
holding that to justify a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence 1 the evidence must have been discovered after trial 2 the failure to discover this evidence must not be attributable to a lack of due diligence on the part of the movant 3 the evidence must not be merely cumulative or impeaching 4 the evidence must be material and 5 the evidence must be likely to produce an acquittal if a new trial is granted holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed holding that to be entitled to relief under rule 60b2 the moving party must show among other things that the newly discovered evidence is material holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial