Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20154 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. $6 70 , 70 6. 55 ( Si x H undr e d Se ve nt y Thou s andSe ve n H undr e d Six D o l l ar s a nd F iftyF iv e C e n ts ); E T A L , D efen d a n ts RHOND A F L EMI NG C l a i m a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 05- c v- 00718 B e fo r e K IN G , S T E W A R T , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * R h on da F l em i n g ap pea l s f ro m th e order enter ed byt h e di st ri ctcourton Februar y 24, 2009, denyi ng herM ot i on f orTem por ar y Rest r ai ni ng O r dert hat United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 24, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

2 s o u g h tto e njo in th e G o v e r n m e n t fr o m s e iz in gth e d e fe n d a n t p r o p e r tie s . W e A F F IR M . I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 5 , th e G o v e r n m e n t file daV e r if i e d C o m p la in t fo rC iv il For fe i t ur e I n R e m i n di s t r i c tco ur t . T he G o ve r nm e ntal l e ge d t hatt he de fe nda nt pr o pe r t i e s w e r e subj e c tt o fo r fe i t ur e unde r1 8 U . S. C. § 9 81 ( a) ( 1) ( C) a s pr o c e e ds t raceabl e t o w i re f

rau d, hea l t h care fra u d , or a consp i racy t o com m i tei t h er of fen se; an d u n der 18 U . S . C . § 981(a) ( 1) (A) a s p ro perty i n volvedi n m on ey l aunderi n g vi ol at i ons . Th e G ove r nm entf urt heras se r t ed that18 U . S. C . § 984 a p p lie ds in c e th e fu n d s w e r e s e iz e dw ith in o n e y e a ro f th e cr im in a l o ffe n s e s . A ccor di n g t o t h e f

orf ei t u re c om pl ai n t , F lem in g , t h rough her bu si n esses H i
- T ech M edi cal S u pp l y an d A dv an ced M edi calB i l l i n g S peci al i st , I n c. , rec eived ap pr o xi m at e l y $3 . 7 m i l l i o n f r o m t he M e di c ar e P r o gr am as ar e s ul to f f r aud ul e nt b i l l i n g . A d v a n c e dMe d i c a lB i l l i n gf i l e db a c k
- d a t e d , f

r a u d u l e n tc l a i ms r epr es ent i ng t hatH i
- Tech pr ovi de ds e rv ic e s a ndm e d i c aleq ui pm enti n 2003 t hat w ere n ot p rov i d ed . T h e d efen d a n t pro p erties w e r e p a y m en ts byM ed i ca re to H i
- Tec h i n 2 00 4 t hatw e r e de r ive d f r o m t he f

r aud ul e ntc l ai m s . Fl e m i ng su b seq u en tly co n d u cteda n u m b er of f i n a n ci a ltran sa cti on s w i th the am ou n ts fra u d u le n tly ob tain edf rom M ed i ca re, i n cl u d i n g m a k i n g d ep osits of f u n d s i n to h er personalban k accou n t s and i n t o accoun t s hel d i n t h e na m e of t h i rd pa rt i es. F le m in ga n dh e ra tt o r n e yw e r e p e r s o n a llys e rv e dw ith aco p yo f th e civ il f orf ei t u re c om pl ai n t . F l em i n g n ever f i l ed a cl ai m or an sw er t o asser tan i n t erest i n t h e defen da n tprop e rties . R ather, on A pri l29, 200 5, she f i l ed, t h rough her at t o r ne y, as w o r n a nd n ot ari zed waive ro f a ny i nt e r e s ti n t he de fe nda nt p r o p e r tie s . T h e G o v e r n m e n t t h e n file daM o tio n fo rD e fa u lt o n J u ly2 9 , 2 0 0 5 . A Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

3 c o pyo f t he m o t i on w as serve d o n Fl e m i ng’ s a t t o r ne y. O n Oct o be r4 , 2 00 5, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d the G overnm e nt ’ s M o t i o n f o rD e faulta nd o r de r e d the forfeit u re of the de fen d a n t pro p erties to t h e G ov ern m en t. O vert hre e y ear s af

t ert he defaul tj udgm entw as ent er ed, on Ja nuary 29 , 20 09 , Fl e m i ng f

i l e d apr o s e M o t i o n t o Se t Asi de For fe i t ur e , r e que s t i ng t hatt he di st ri ctcourtset asi de th e 200 5 defaul tj u dg m en tan d f i n alorder of

f orf ei t u re. TheGo v e r nm e ntf

il e da n o ppos i t i on, addr es si ng Fl em i ng’ s m ot i on underFeder al R u l e o f C ivilP rocedure 60. O n F ebru ary 9, 200 9, t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed F le m in g ’ s M o tio n to S e t A s id e F o r fe itu r e b e c a u s e it w a s tim e b a r r e db yR u le 60(c) an d b e ca u se F lem i n g fai l ed to show excusab l e neg l ector ad van ce a m e r ito r io u s d e fe n s e p u r s u a n t t o R u le 6 0 (b ). T h ereaf t er, on F ebru ary 12 an d 17, 2 009 , F l em i n g f i l ed severalm ot i on s: a M ot i on f

or Tem porary R est rai n i n g O rder, an add i t i on al M ot i on f or E m ergency TR O , a nd a Ver i f

i e d Am e nde d M o t i o n t o Se t Asi de For fe i t ur e , e s s e nt i all y r ai s i ng t h e s a me a r g u me n t s p r e s e n t e di n h e ri n i t i a lM o t i o n t o S e tA s i d e F o r fe i t u r e . On F ebru ary 24, 200 9, t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed F l em i n g’ s Feb rua ry 12 M ot i on f or Tem po r ar y Res t r ai ni ng O r de r as a s uc c e s s ive m o t i o n und e rRul e 6 0(b) , f o rt he s a m e re a s o n s s e t fo r th inits F e b r u a r y9 o r d e r . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u b s e q u e n tly den i ed F l em i n g’ s r em ai n i n g t w o m ot i on s on M arch 4 , 2 0 0 9, t reat i n g t h ese m o tio n s a s s u c c e s s iv e R u le 6 0 m o tio n s a s w e ll. F l em i n g ap pea l ed f

rom t h e F ebru ary9 o rd e r d en yi n g h er M ot i on t o Set A si de For fe i t ur e a nd f r o m t he Fe br uary 24 o r de rde nyi ng he rM o t i o n f or T em porary R est rai ni ng O r de r . Thea ppe alo f t h e F ebru ary 9 order w as di sm i ssed f or w an tof prosecuti on ; the ap pea lof t h e F ebru ary 24 order i s presently bef ore t h i s c ou rt . I n add i t i on to the ap pea l s, F l em i n g f i l ed w i t h t h i s c ou rta M ot i on f or Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

4 P rel i m i n ary Inj u n ct i on , requesti n g t h at th e G overnm en tret u rn f u n ds sei zed f r om tw o a c c ount s. She al sos ubse quent l y f i l ed a M ot i on f

orSum m ar y Ru l i ng, a r g u in gth a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t fa ile dt o t im e lyf ile a r e s p o n s e b r ie f to h e ra p p e a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . Cons t r ui ng t heMo t i o n f o rTe mpo r ar

yRes t r ai ni ng O r de rasa Rule5 9 Mo t i o n G e ne r all y, apo s t -j udg m e ntm o t i o n w h i c h c hall e nge s t he und e r l yi ng ju d g m e n t a n dr e q u e s ts r e lie f, o th e rt h a n c o r r e c tio n o f ap u r e lycle r ic a l e r r o r , is tr e a te du n d e rR u le 6 0 if it is file dm o r e th a n te n d a y s a fte rth e ju d g m e n t is e n te r e d . Ha rc o n B a rg e Co . v . D& G B o a t R en ta ls , 784 F . 2d 665 , 667
- 69 ( 5th C i r. 19 86 ) ( e n banc) . T he f i l i ng o f a suc c e s s iveRul e 6 0(b) m o t i o n do e s no te xt e nd the ti m e for f

i l i n g a n o tic e o f ap p ea lf rom the f

i rst R u l e 6 0 (b) m oti on w h ere bo th r a is e s im ila ra r g u m e n ts , a n dd is m is s a l o f a n a p p e a l fr o m th e s e c o n dm o tio n is p r o p e rif u n tim e lyu n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e l l a te P r o c e d u r e 4 (a ). La t ham v. W e l ls FargoBank , 9 8 7 F .2 d1 1 9 9 ,1 2 0 3 -0 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (p e rcu r ia m ). T h is c o u r t, h o w e v e r , m a ytr e a t a s e c o n dp o s t-ju d g m e n t m o tio n , w h ic h is file dw ith in t en day s of

the den i alof R u l e 6 0(b) rel i ef, a s a r equ estf or r econsi derati on un der R u le 5 9 . E leby v. A m . Med. S ys. , I n c. , 7 9 5 F .2d 4 1 1 , 4 1 2 -1 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). U nde rs uc h c i r c um s t anc e s , t hi s c o ur tha s pe r m i t t e d r e vi e w o f t he r ul i ng o n t he R u l e 59 m ot i on f

or th e l i m i t ed p u rpose of deter m i n i n g w h et h er th e di st ri ctcourt e r r o n e o u s lyd e n ie dre c o n s id e r a tio n o f R u le 6 0 (b ) r e lie f. Id . H e re , F l em i n g’ s Feb rua ry 12 M ot i on f or Tem porary R est rai n i n g O rder pre se nt ed the sam e arg um ent s and r eques t ed the s am e r eli ef as t he January29 M ot i on t o S et A si de Forfei t u re. A dd i t i on al l y, al t h ou gh t h e F ebru ary 12 m ot i on di d notr ef

ertothe di st r i c tcour t ’ s or derdenyi ng t he January29 m ot i on, i tw as f i l e dwi t hi n t e n d a y s o f t he o r d e r . Th e r e f

o r e , i tm a yb e c o ns t r ue da s aRul e 59 Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

5 m ot i on requesti n g reconsi derati on of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r u l i n g on t h e Jan u ary 2 9 m o tio n . Lat ham , 987 F. 2d at1205; E le by , 7 9 5 F .2 da t 4 1 2 -1 3 ; seealso Un i t ed St at e s v. O ne198 8 D o dgePi c kup , 959 F . 2d37, 41 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) . I f w e t reat ed t he Fe b r ua r y 1 2 m o t i o n s i m p l y a s a s uc c e s s iv e Rul e 6 0 (b ) m o t i o n, i tw oul d be u n tim e lyu n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 4 (a ) b e c a u s e , lik e a p p e a ls f rom f i n alcivi lj u dg m en t s, app eal s f rom den i al s of

R u l e 60 m ot i on s m u st be f i l ed “w i th i n 3 0 d a ys a ft er th e j u d gm en t oro rd er a p p ea l edf rom i s en tered . ” F ED . R. A PP . P ROC . 4( a) ( 1) (A) . A ccor di n gl y, w e t reatF l em i ng’ s Feb rua ry 12 m ot i on un der R u l e 5 9 an dthu s F l em in g ti m ely fil edn oti ce of ap p ea li n acco rd a n ce w i th F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 4 (a ). B . S t an d ardof

R evi ew Addr e s s i ng t he de ni a lo f Fl e m i ng’ s Fe br uary 12 m o t i o n und e rRul e 5 9, o ur r e vi e w i s l i m i t e d t o w he t he rt he di s t r i c tco ur tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n r e f us i ng r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f its p r e v io u s o r d e rd e n y in gR u le 6 0 re lie f. E le by , 795 F. 2d at 413- 14. C . W ai v e rof Argum e nt s o n Appe al A s a t hre sho l d m at t e r , Fl e m i ngn o w r a i s e s n um er ous ar gum ent s on appea l t h at w e re n otsetf ort h i n her Jan u ary 29 or F ebru ary 12 m ot i on s. T h ese argu m en t s i n cl u de: ( 1) t h e defau l tj u dg m en tis v oi d u n der R u l e 60(b) ( 4) becau se s e rvi c e o f

pr o c e s s w as no tpe r fe c t e d; (2) t he G o ve r nm e ntc o m m i t t e d f r aud , m i sr epr es ent at i on a n d o rm i sc onducti n vi ol at i on o f R ul e 6 0(b) ( 3) by usi ng a c o ndit i o nalw aive ri n t he f o r fe it u r ep r o c e e d i n g ; ( 3 ) F l e m i ng’ s w aive ro f de fe nda nt properti es w as not kn ow i n gl y or i n te ll ige n t l y given ; an d ( 4) t h e di st ri ctcourt l acked sub j ect m att er j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e defenda n t f u n ds si n ce t h e yw ere sei zed i n vi ol ati on of t h e t raci n g requ i rem en t s i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 981 . A l t h ou gh pro Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

6 s e p le a d in g s a r e tr e a te dlib e r a lly , Un i t ed S t ate s v. R obi n son , 78 F. 3d 172, 174 (5th C i r. 19 9 6 ), F l em i n g cou l d h a ve ra i sed the se a rg u m en ts i n the distri ct cou rt. T h i s C ou rtw i l lnot r eview is sues f or th e f i rstt i m e on ap pea lt h at w ere not p r e s e n te dto t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, a b s e n t e x tr a o r d in a r ycir c u m s ta n c e s . B e nso n v. S t . Joseph R eg’lHeal t h C t r. , 575 F . 3d542 , 548 ( 5th C i r. 200 9) . E xtr aordi n ary c i r c um s t anc e s ex i s tw he n t he i s s ue i nvo lve d i s a pur e l y l e ga lque s t i o n of l aw and am is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e w o u ldre s u lt fr o m th e fa ilu r e to co n s id e rit. Id . As n ei t h er fact or app l i es h ere, F l em i n g h as fai l ed to al l ege or s h ow ext raordi n ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s . W e th e r e fo r e p r o c e e dto a d d r e s s o n lyth o s e a r g u m e n ts p r o p e r ly r a is e db yF le m in gb e fo r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. D . Mot i on t o Se tAsi de Forf e i t ureTi m eB arre d by Ru le60( b) Fl e m i ng’ s J anua r y 29 m o t i o n s o ugh tt o se tas i de t he de faultj udg m e nta nd f i nalo r de ro f

f o r fe i t ur e , c l ai m i ng t hatFl e m i ng’ s w aive ro f i nt er e s ti n t he de fe nda ntpr o pe r t i e s ha d b e e n c o ndit i o ne d upo n t he G o ve r nm e ntb r i ngi ng no c r i m i nalc har ge s a ga i ns the r , o rof feri ng he rde fe r r e d p r o s e c ut i o n f o rt he c r i m i nalv i o l at i o ns und e r l yi ng t he f o r fe i t ur e a c ti o ni n r e t ur n f o rhe rc o o pe r at i o n. B ecau se no agreem en tw as reachedi n t h e cr i m i n alcase an d these even t s di d n ot m ater i al ize , F l em i n g argu ed that she shou l d be p erm i t t ed to w i t h draw her w aiver an d contestthe f orf ei t u re. F l em i n g al so assert ed t h at she n ever rec eived n oti ce of a forfei tu re h ea ri n g inviol a ti on of h er d u e p roce ss righ t. T o m e r it r e lie f u n d e rR u le 6 0 (b ), am o v a n t m u s t s h o w : (1) m i stak e, i n a d ve rten ce, su rp ri se o r ex cu sa b l e n eg l ect; ( 2) new l y di scovered evi den ce th at, w i t h reasonab l e d il igen ce, coul d n ot h a v e b e e n d is c o v e r e dintim e to m o v e fo ran e w tr ia l u n d e rR u le 5 9 (b ); (3 ) fr a u d , . . . m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n , o rm is c o n d u c t b ya n o p p o s in gp a r ty ; Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

7 (4 ) th e ju d g m e n t is v o id ; ( 5) t h e j u dg m en t h as been sati sf i ed, rel eased, or di scharged ; i ti s based on a n e a r lie rju d g m e n tt h a t h a s b e e n re v e r s e do rv a c a te d ; o ra p p ly in git prospectivel y i s no l on ger equ i t able; or (6 ) a n yo th e rre a s o n th a t ju s tifie s re lie f. F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) . R el i ef un der sub secti o n (6) i s not ava i l able i f t h e t yp e of r e lie f s o u g h t is co v e r e db yth e o th e r s u b s e c tio n s in R u le 6 0 (b ), a n dis a v a ila b le o n lyif e x tr a o r d in a r ycir c u m s ta n c e s e x is t. Hes s v . Co ck re ll , 281 F. 3d 212, 216 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). F o rs u b s e c tio n s (1 )-(3 ), am o v a n t m u s t f i l e h e rR u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n w ith in o n e y e a ro f th e ju d g m e n t. F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(c) . M ot i on s u n der sub sect i on (6) are n otsu bj e c tt o t he o ne - ye art i m e l i m i t at i o n, b utt he y m us tb e b r o ugh tw i t hi n a r e a s o n a b le tim e . TravelersI n s. Co. v. L i l

j eberg E n t er. , I

n c. , 38 F. 3d 1404, 1410 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . W h at constit u t es a reasona bl e ti m e d epen ds on the fact s of each c as e , t ak i ng i nt o c o ns i de r at i o n t he i nt e r e s ti n f i nali t y, t he re as o n fo rdel ay , t he practi calabi l i t y of

t h e l i t i gan tt o l earn of t h e groun ds rel i ed upon , an d p rej u di ce t o ot h er part i es. Id . As the di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y de t e r m i ne d, Fl e m i ng’ s J anua r y 29 m o t i o n, a p p r o p r ia t e lytr e a t e du n d e rR u le 6 0 (b ), w a s ti m e -b a r r e dw h e t h e rF le m in g ’s m ot i on w as t reat ed u n der R u l e 60(b) ( 1) or ( 6) . T h e m ot i on , f i l ed over t h ree years af t er th e defau l tj u dg m en ta n d fin a lorder of f orf ei t u re w ere enter ed, w as not file d w ith in are a s o n a b le a m o u n t o f tim e . SeeA ngl i n v. L oc alUni on 1351 , 102 F. A pp’ x 367, 370 ( 5t h C i r . 2 0 0 4) (“ t hi s w as nota c as e w her e the dea dl i ne w as b a rely m i ssed by a da y or so du e t o u n f oreseen circum st an ces or t h e li k e ”). Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/24/2010N o. 09- 20154

8 F l em i n g kn ew t h ere w ere p en di n g f orf ei t u re p roceedi n gs, as she f i l ed a w aiver i n t he f or feit ure c as e, and she has nots how n goo d c ause f ors uch a l engt hy del ay. E . F ail u re t o S h ow a Meri t ori ou s D ef ense E ven add ress i n g F l em i n g’ s argum en t s on t h e m erits, th e di st ri ctcourt p r o p e r lyfo u n dth a t F le m in gfa ile dto s h o w am e r ito r io u s d e fe n s e u n d e rR u le 60 (b) . A di s t r i c tc o ur tha s t he di s c r e t i o n t o r e f us e t o s e tas i de a de faultj udg m e nt i f th e d efen d a n t fa i l s to pr ese n t a m eritori ou s d efen se su ff i ci en t t o su p p ort a fin d in go n th e m e r its fo rth e d e fa u ltin gp a r ty . Je nke ns& G i lc hr i s tv . G ro i a & Co. , 542 F. 3d 114, 120 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (c i t i ng Lacyv . Si t e lCor p. , 227 F. 3d 290, 293 ( 5th C i r. 2 000 ) ) . F l em i n g m erely st ated i n her M ot i on t o Set A si de F orf ei t u re t hats he o w ned t he def endantpr ope r t i es and th a t th ey w er e e ar ned t hro ugh l egit i m at e b usi nes se s. H ow ev er, a j ury has no w c onvi c t ed herof t he c r i m i nal of fen ses w h i ch f

orm ed the basi s f

or th e civi lfo rfe iture. T h e concl u sory all e ga t i o ns i n t he M o t i o n t o Se tAsi de Fo r fe i t ur e a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h a p r o b a b ilit yo f

s u c c e s s o n th e m e r its if th e fo r fe itu r e o r d e rw e r e s e t a s id e . O ne 19 88D o dgePi c kup , 9 5 9 F .2 da t 4 2 ; O n e1 9 79P ip e rNa v a jo , 748 F. 2d at319. U n der t h ese ci rcum st an ces, the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n ota bu se it s di scr et i on by r ef usi ng t o s etas i de the defaul tj udgm entan d denyi ng Fl em i ng’ s January 29 m o t i o n, a nd the r e af

t e rde nyi ng Fl e m i ng’ s Fe br uary 12 m o t i o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons di scussed, t h e den i alof F l em i n g’ s Feb rua ry 12 M ot i on f or T e m p o r a r y R e s t r a in in g O r d e r is a ff ir m e d . F o r t h e s a m e r e a s o n s , F l e m in g ’s M ot i on f

or Prel i m i n ary Inj u n ct i on bef ore th i s c ou rti s den i ed, an d h er M ot i on f or S u m m a r yR u lin gis a ls o d e n ie d . Case: 09-20154 Document: 00511034305 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/24/2010