FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-56688
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04251-R-VBK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AKRAM YASSIN, AKA Akram Sobhieya
Yassin,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Akram Yassin appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motion to vacate summary judgment in the government’s action to revoke his
United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1451(a), and granting the government’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
motion to enforce the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254,
1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yassin’s motion to
vacate summary judgment and granting the government’s motion to enforce the
judgment, because Yassin failed to establish that the judgment was obtained
through fraud, and did not explain why he could not have discovered this alleged
fraud prior to the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Casey, 362 F.3d at 1260
(to prevail on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion the moving party must prove that the
judgment was obtained through fraud, and that the fraud was not discoverable by
due diligence before or during proceedings); see also Cal. Dep’t. of Social Services
v. Leavitt, 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for an abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to enforce a judgment).
We reject Yassin’s contention that the district court erred in denying his
motion for appointment of counsel.
We also reject Yassin’s contentions that due to the existence of an allegedly
identical prior lawsuit the district court lacked jurisdiction over the current lawsuit
and he has been subjected to double jeopardy, that the district court improperly
2 13-56688
denied him discovery, and that the district court improperly refused to file Yassin’s
letter concerning his inquiries regarding his prison mail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yassin’s appeal of the district court’s 2012
summary judgment because Yassin failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal from
entry of judgment or a timely tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. § 4(a)(1)(B)(i),
(a)(4)(A)(vi).
Yassin’s request for appointment of counsel in connection with this appeal,
set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56688