From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Osborn

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 1, 2009
357 F. App'x 109 (9th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 06-30346.

Argued and Submitted November 3, 2009.

Filed December 1, 2009.

Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

F. Ron Newbury, Newbury Law Firm, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-05-00007-CCL.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Shelly Osborn appeals from the entry of a criminal forfeiture order seizing her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court correctly found that Osborn's petition was time-barred because it was filed 71 days after receiving notice of the preliminary order of forfeiture. 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(2); Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(c)(2). Even assuming the district court could waive the time bar for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Osborn

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 1, 2009
357 F. App'x 109 (9th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. Osborn

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shelley R. OSBORN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 1, 2009

Citations

357 F. App'x 109 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

United States v. Stells (In re Third-Party Claim Black)

Plaintiff also cites other cases where a third-party claimant in a civil forfeiture action had a claim denied…