Legal Research AI

United States v. Grajales

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date filed: 1999-04-20
Citations: 180 F.3d 263
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        __________________

                           No. 97-20126
                         Summary Calendar
                        __________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                        Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE J. GRAJALES,

                                        Defendant,

AMIN A. RASHID,
As Assignee for Jose Grajales,

                                        Movant-Appellant.

                       - - - - - - - - - -
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-91-CR-211-2
                       - - - - - - - - - -

                            April 20, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Federal prisoner Amin A. Rashid, # 30591-066, appeals the

district court’s denial of his motion for relief pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1),(3) and the denial of his motion to reopen

the time for appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).      This

court reviews a district court’s decision denying relief under

Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion.    Travelers Ins. Co. v.


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
                          No. 97-20126
                               -2-

Liljeberg Enter. Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994).

Because Rashid has failed to establish standing to challenge the

forfeiture of the currency, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion.   See United States

v. $321,470 U.S. Currency, 874 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1989).

     The court need not address Rashid’s remaining arguments in

his brief because he has no standing to sue.   Rashid’s motion to

strike the Government’s brief and motion to file a supplemental

appendix are DENIED.

     AFFIRMED.