United States v. Joey Antwan Smith, No. 13-2701 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - Forfeiture. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for relief from judgment.
Download PDF
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Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: June 25, 2014 Filed: July 1, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
