United States v. Michael Wells

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 14, 2023
Docket23-1039
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Michael Wells (United States v. Michael Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Michael Wells, (8th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-1039 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael G. Wells

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________

Submitted: September 11, 2023 Filed:September 14, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Wells appeals after the district court1 denied his motions to modify a 2003 stipulation for judgment by consent and associated judgment, for

1 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. reconsideration, and for a hearing on reconsideration. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Reviewing the parties’ arguments and the circumstances of this case, this court finds no basis to reverse the district court’s orders. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wells’s motion to modify the judgment by consent. See City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147, 1152, 1154 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) (party seeking modification of consent decree bears burden of establishing significant change in circumstances warrants revision of decree). This court has also considered Wells’s challenges to the denial of his motions to reconsider and for a hearing, and finds no error. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (motion for relief from judgment or order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and requires showing of exceptional circumstances warranting relief).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Michael Wells, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-wells-ca8-2023.