IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50864
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1258
HIGUERA ROAD, SAN ELIZARIO,
TEXAS, WITH ALL APPURTENANCES AND
IMPROVEMENTS THEREON; ET AL.,
Claimants,
BENJAMIN CHAGOYAN; GUADALUPE CHAGOYAN,
Claimants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-94-CV-386
- - - - - - - - - -
September 16, 1997
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Benjamin Chagoyan and Guadalupe Chagoyan appeal the denial
of their “Motion to Rescind Agreement and for the Restitution of
Real Property” filed in the instant forfeiture proceeding, 21
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-50864
- 2 -
U.S.C. § 881. On appeal, they argue (1) that there was no
evidence of wrongdoing on their part and, therefore, the
Government was without authority to take their property; (2) that
they failed to receive any consideration for surrendering their
interest in the subject property; and (3) that the stipulation
agreement for compromise settlement should be rescinded because
it was signed without any understanding of its contents inasmuch
as the document was in English and they read and understand
Spanish only.
The Chagoyans’ motion to rescind, being construed as a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion, was filed more than one year after
the entry of the order on the stipulation agreement and,
therefore, was untimely. Because the Chagoyans’ motion was not
timely filed, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
it. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
In any event, the Chagoyans’ brief wholly fails to meet the
requirements for preserving issues on appeal. Fed. R. App. P.
28(a)(4). This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is
thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.