Opinion
Submitted May 14, 1998.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Alfredo C. Marquez, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, TROTT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Roberto G. Noperi appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) motion to extend time to file a notice of appeal and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment from the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denials of Noperi's motions for an abuse of discretion, see Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir.1996) (Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir.1997) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)), and we affirm.
The scope of Appellant's appeal is restricted to the denial of his Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motions pursuant to the Appellate Commissioner's order filed on June 12, 1997.
Because review of "all relevant circumstances surrounding [Noperi's] omission" fails to show excusable neglect, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion to extend time pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). See Pioneer Inv. Servs., Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); Marx, 87 F.3d at 1054 (stating that absent a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment, this court cannot reverse).
The district court's determination that Noperi failed to show exceptional circumstances requiring a grant of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion withstands scrutiny under the abuse of discretion standard because Noperi adduces no evidence that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from taking timely action to protect his interests. See United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.
See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly, Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.