United States v. Michael Carey
This text of 441 F. App'x 489 (United States v. Michael Carey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Carey and Leone Carey appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their motion to vacate the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion. Retail Clerks Union Joint Pension Trust v. Freedom Food Ctr., Inc., 938 F.2d 136, 137 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.
The district court properly denied the Careys’ motion to vacate as untimely because the motion was filed nearly three years after the judgment, and the Careys did not provide any legitimate excuse for the delay. See, e.g., Hammer v. Drago (In re Hammer), 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir.1991) (un-excused two year delay in filing a motion for relief from judgment was unreasonable). Moreover, contrary to the Careys’ contentions, the bankruptcy court ruled that their tax liability was non-dis-chargeable. See United States v. Carey (In Re Carey), 326 B.R. 816, 824 (Bankr. E.D.Cal.2005).
The Careys’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
441 F. App'x 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-carey-ca9-2011.