United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles A. Schultz, Defendant-appellant, 46 F.3d 1152 (10th Cir. 1995)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal is from an order of the district court granting the United States motion for summary judgment and denying the pro se defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant appeals on the grounds that the district court erred in granting the government's motion for summary judgment because the judgment upon which the complaint was based was void and because the statute under which petitioner was prosecuted was invalid and, further, on the grounds that the government filed its complaint outside the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo applying the same legal standard as that applied by the district court to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and whether the substantive law was correctly applied. Ash Creek Min. Co. v. Lujan, 969 F.2d 868 (10th Cir. 1992). Defendant was a ticketed passenger on an airline flight when security personnel discovered a loaded revolver in his carry-on luggage. The FAA assessed a civil penalty against him for violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations and 901(d) of the Federal Aviation Act. Defendant received a full hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) who assessed a civil penalty of $2000. The ALJ's determination was appealed to the administrator of the FAA who affirmed the ALJ's initial decision. The United States filed this action to reduce to judgment the civil penalty against the defendant by the FAA. Defendant here attempts to collaterally attack the validity of the FAA order. The district court correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction to consider the collateral attack and granted summary judgment in favor of the United States. We agree with the district court that there are no genuine issues of material fact to dispute in this case and that the law is clear that the district court has no jurisdiction to consider a collateral attack on the FAA order. This case is controlled by U.S. v. McBride, 788 F.2d 1429, 1432 (10th Cir. 1986). AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.