Tariq Belt v. United States, No. 14-1506 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Forfeiture. Motion to reopen the time for filing an appeal was untimely under FRAP 4(a)(6), and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1506 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Dale A. Moncrieffe; Garfield Kirk Atkins lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants Tariq Liyuen Adevemi Belt lllllllllllllllllllllMovant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: October 17, 2014 Filed: October 22, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Tariq Belt appeals from the order of the District Court denying his motion claiming ownership of currency that had been forfeited years earlier in relation to criminal proceedings against a third person. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order denying Belt s claim was entered on March 26, 2013. In December 2013, Belt sent a letter to the Chief Judge for the Southern District of Iowa asking about his claim. The Chief Judge wrote back, notifying Belt of the March 26 order. Belt acknowledged receipt of the Chief Judge s reply in correspondence postmarked December 19. Some weeks later, on February 12, 2014, Belt moved to reopen the time to appeal; his filing indicated in various places that he mailed it on January 14 or 15, 2014. The District Court granted the motion to reopen and filed Belt s notice of appeal on February 14, 2014. Belt s motion to reopen the time to appeal, however, was untimely under the dictates of Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (stating that a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal must be filed within 180 days of the entry of the order being appealed or within 14 days after the movant receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier). See Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a motion to reopen the time to appeal for lack of notice must be filed within the time specified by Rule 4(a)(6)). The District Court therefore lacked authority to rule on the motion. See Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 794 95 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that a district court has no authority to consider a motion filed outside the time limits of Rule 4(a)(6)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ______________________________ -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.
