Filed: Mar. 24, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50569 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ONE 1984 CHEVROLET CORVETTE; ET AL., Defendants, PHILLIP J. FAIRCHILD, Claimant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (89-CV-945) - - - - - - - - - - March 24, 2000 Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Claimant-Appellant Phillip J. Fairchild, federal prison
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50569 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ONE 1984 CHEVROLET CORVETTE; ET AL., Defendants, PHILLIP J. FAIRCHILD, Claimant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (89-CV-945) - - - - - - - - - - March 24, 2000 Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Claimant-Appellant Phillip J. Fairchild, federal prisone..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50569
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ONE 1984 CHEVROLET CORVETTE; ET AL.,
Defendants,
PHILLIP J. FAIRCHILD,
Claimant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(89-CV-945)
- - - - - - - - - -
March 24, 2000
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Claimant-Appellant Phillip J. Fairchild, federal prisoner #
03009-090, appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for the return of his cost bonds. Fairchild argues that
there has been no award of costs to the government and that the
government’s request for costs some eight years after the judgment
of forfeiture was untimely. Fairchild also argues that if this
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
court reverses the district court and releases the cost bonds to
him, then he is also entitled to interest on those funds.
We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and
find no authority for Fairchild’s motion, except perhaps in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b). See United States v. Real Property,
920 F.2d 788
(11th Cir. 1991). Despite Fairchild’s contention that he learned
belatedly of this possible remedy, the motion was not timely.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is
AFFIRMED.
2