USA V. DOUGLAS CARAWAY, No. 13-15650 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOV 30 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 13-15650 D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04371-MMC v. MEMORANDUM* DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Taxpayer Douglas R. Caraway appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in the United States’ action to reduce to judgment federal income tax assessments for tax years 1995 and 1998 to 2004. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion the denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caraway’s motion for relief from judgment because the district court considered the correct legal framework and did not rely on clearly erroneous facts. See id. at 1223-24 (discussing four-factor equitable determination required for relief under Rule 60(b)(1)). To the extent that Caraway seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), we do not consider this argument because Caraway did not raise it before the district court. See Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2004). We do not consider any documents that are not part of the district court record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a); Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988). We reject Caraway’s contentions concerning his tax liabilities as stipulated to by the parties and as determined by the district court. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15650

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.