United States v. Lonneker Farms, Inc.

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LONNEKER FARMS, INC.; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 16, 2005

158 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

Submitted December 5, 2005. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

USSP--Office of the U.S. Attorney, Patricia Lee Johnson, United States Small Business Administration, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff.

Norman K. Hunter, Esq., Norman Hunter Law Office, Pomeroy, WA, Larry L. Mundahl, Esq., Huppin, Ewing, Anderson & Paul, Spokane, WA, Patrick F. Hussey, Esq., Anderson Hunter Law Firm PS, Everett, WA, Arthur R. Eggers, Walla Walla, WA, for Defendants.

Kristian Einar Hedine, Esq., Walla Walla, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert F. Lonneker, Spokane, WA, pro se.

Thomas T. Bassett, Esq., Lukins & Annis, Spokane, WA.

Darwin D. Grewe, Esq., Casey, Gore & Grewe PS, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-84-00812-JLQ.

Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** 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.

Robert F. Lonneker appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate an earlier judgment as void. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. See Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Page 898.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lonneker's motion to vacate a judgment entered sixteen years earlier. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4)(motion must be filed within a reasonable time). Lonneker's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment should have been raised in his prior appeal to this court. See United States v. Lonneker, 865 F.2d 265 (9th Cir.1988); see also Kesselring v. F/T Arctic Hero, 95 F.3d 23, 24 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.