IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20634

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ALISA G. BRYANT, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-3903

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alisa Bryant appeals the district court’s denial of her Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the default judgment entered against 

her. We AFFIRM. 

This suit involves a dispute over repayment of a student loan that was 

disbursed over thirty years ago. Bryant received the $2,500 loan from Texaco 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20634 Document: 00512986391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-20634

Houston Credit Union in 1982 while attending Southern University. After

Bryant failed to make timely payments, the loan was declared in default in 

1987. The loan guarantor, USA Funds, paid Texaco the outstanding amount 

due and Bryant then became indebted to the guarantor. Bryant made some 

payments between 1989 and 1992, but USA Funds was unable to collect the 

full amount owed. The debt was later assigned to the United States 

Department of Education. In October 2004, the United States initiated this 

suit to collect the outstanding balance. Bryant received notice of the suit by 

substituted service in November. After she failed to defend, the district court 

entered a default judgment against her in December. Over nine years later, 

Bryant filed a motion to “reverse the default judgment,” which the district 

court construed as a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment. The district 

court denied the motion after a hearing in September 2014. 

DISCUSSION

This court reviews a district court’s refusal to set aside a default 

judgment for abuse of discretion. Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assocs., Inc., 

775 F.3d 689, 692–93 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Rule 60(b) provides six provisions for setting aside a judgment. Bryant 

urges that the judgment should be set aside under the Rule’s first three 

provisions for mistake, discovery of new evidence, and fraud. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b)(1)–(3). She also argues that the judgment should be vacated under 

Rule 60(b)(6)’s “catch-all” provision, which allows a court to set aside a 

judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 

1 Bryant also purports to argue on appeal that the judgment should be set aside under

Rule 60(b)(4) and (b)(5), but her arguments do not implicate these provisions.

2

 

 Case: 14-20634 Document: 00512986391 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
No. 14-20634

Rule 60(c) provides time requirements for filing a 60(b) motion: “A 

motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time – and for 

reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or 

order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Bryant’s motion 

was filed more than nine years after the judgment was entered. Thus, her 

arguments under Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) are foreclosed by the plain language of Rule 

60(c). While it is true that relief may be granted under Rule 60(b)(6) outside 

of the one-year period, such motions still must be brought within a “reasonable 

time.” See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1410 (5th 

Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). Reasonableness depends upon the particular 

facts and circumstances of each case. Id. “Rule 60(b)(6) motions will be 

granted only if extraordinary circumstances are present.” Hess v. Cockrell, 281 

F.3d 212, 216 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Bryant’s motion was not filed within a reasonable time and she has not 

shown that extraordinary circumstances are present. Therefore, her Rule 

60(b)(6) motion also fails. 

AFFIRMED. 

3

 Case: 14-20634 Document: 00512986391 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/30/2015