Case ID: f-appx_329/html/0049-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Larry THOMAS, Husband; Rosie Lee Thomas, Wife, Appellants.
    Nos. 07-3652, 08-1252, 08-2094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 7, 2009.
    Filed: May 22, 2009.
    Earl Fletcher Jackson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
    Larry Thomas, Earle, AR, pro se.
    Rosie Lee Thomas, Earle, AR, pro se.
    Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Larry and Rosie Lee Thomas appeal from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment as well as its denials of their post-judgment motions to quash a writ of assistance and for other relief. On appeal, they argue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Myers v. Richland County, 429 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir.2005), we conclude that the court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345. Finally, we find no basis for reversing the district court’s denials of appellants’ post-judgment motions. Cf. Lara v. Sec’y of Interior, 820 F.2d 1535, 1542-43 (9th Cir.1987) (district court may issue orders pending appeal to enforce judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm in each of these three consolidated appeals. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellants’ pending motion for contempt is denied. 
      
      . The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
     
      
      . In particular, we find no merit to appellants' jurisdictional argument that is apparently based on Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C.1999), aff’d, 206 F.3d 1212 (D.C.Cir.2000).