U.S. v. Amino Discounters, Ltd.

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMINO DISCOUNTERS, LTD.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 21, 1998

161 F.3d 14 (9th Cir. 1998)

Opinion

161 F.3d 14 (9th Cir. 1998) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMINO DISCOUNTERS, LTD., a corporation, and Sherry Marie Cano, Defendants,and Mark A. THIERMAN Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-16175. No. CV-91-00112-ACM United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 21, 1998

Submitted August 17, 1998 ^**

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 O'SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and HAWKINS, 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.

Mark A. Thierman, a former Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying him attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion, see Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Thierman filed his motion for reconsideration more than ten days after the order denying him attorneys' fees. Accordingly, our jurisdiction extends only to the district court's April 19, 1995 order denying the motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4).

Because Thierman's motion for reconsideration simply revisits the issues raised in earlier proceedings, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.