United States v. Lamont D. Hill

23 F. App'x 621

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 14, 2001
• Docket: 01-1526, 01-2434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Lamont Hill challenges orders of the district court 1 which confirmed a foreclosure sale (No. 01-1526), and denied relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), denied his recusal motion, and imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (No. 01-2434).

We dismiss appeal No. 01-1526 as moot. See United States v. Fitzgerald, 109 F.3d 1339, 1342 (8th Cir.1997) (once foreclosed property is sold to third-party purchaser, court generally lacks power to craft remedy for debtor; therefore, debtor who fails to obtain stay of sale has no remedy on appeal and appeal is moot).

As to appeal No. 01-2434, we conclude after careful review of the record that the district court’s rulings were within its discretion. See Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir.1997) (Rule 60(b) standard of review); Isakson v. First Nat’l Bank, Sioux Falls, 985 F.2d 984, 986 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam)(Rule 11 standard of review); United States v. Faul, 748 F.2d 1204, 1211 (8th Cir.l984)(recusal standard of review), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1027, 105 S.Ct. 3500, 87 L.Ed.2d 632 (1985). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1 . The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.