Filed: Jul. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-2701 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. 2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, VIN# 2G1WW12E349209700 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Joey Antwan Smith lllllllllllllllllllllClaimant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: June 25, 2014 Filed: July 1, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CU
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 13-2701 _ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. 2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, VIN# 2G1WW12E349209700 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Joey Antwan Smith lllllllllllllllllllllClaimant - Appellant _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines _ Submitted: June 25, 2014 Filed: July 1, 2014 [Unpublished] _ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CUR..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2701
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, VIN# 2G1WW12E349209700
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
Joey Antwan Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllClaimant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
____________
Submitted: June 25, 2014
Filed: July 1, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this civil forfeiture action, Joey Smith appeals the district court’s1 denial of
his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment.
Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude
that Smith did not present a valid basis for post-judgment relief, and that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying his post-judgment motion. See Murphy
v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr.,
506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court’s denial of
Rule 60(b)(6) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Arnold v. Wood,
238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (because Rule 60(b) motion cannot substitute for
appeal, appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not present underlying
judgment for appellate review; Rule 60(b) is not vehicle for simple reargument on
merits); Ivy v. Kimbrough,
115 F.3d 550, 552 (8th Cir. 1997) (attorney’s ignorance
or carelessness does not constitute excusable neglect).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
-2-