United States v. Robert L. Lytle, No. 17-3813 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Denial of postjudgment motions affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2421 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. 2035, Inc., a corporation lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant Robert L. Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA and QLasers PMA lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 17-3813 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. 2035, Inc., a corporation lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant Robert Larry Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA, doing business as QLasers PMA lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City ____________ Submitted: August 28, 2018 Filed: August 31, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Robert Larry Lytle appeals the district court’s1 denial of his multiple postjudgment motions. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motions. See Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -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.
