* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 24, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. EDWARD G. NOVOTNY, in his individual capacity as Trustee of MIDWEST LIMITED and SUNRISE INVESTMENTS; ETTA B. NOVOTNY, Defendants-Appellants, STATE OF COLORADO, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 05-1048 (D.C. No. 99-RB-2196 (PAC))

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before O’BRIEN , HOLLOWAY , and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Edward and Etta Novotny, appearing pro se, appeal from a post-judgment order correcting the legal description of real estate involved in a federal tax foreclosure action. We affirm. The United States brought suit to reduce to judgmen t assessments against Mr. Novotny for income taxes for tax years 1989, 19 90, and 1991, along with penalties and interest, and to foreclose liens upon several parcels of real property. The district court entered judgment and ordered the properties sold. One half of the sale proceeds were to be applied to Mr. Novotny ’s federal tax liability, and upon satisfaction of this liability, remaining fund s to his state tax liability. The other half of the proceeds were to be paid to Mrs. Novotny. The court also entered a deficiency judgment against Mr. Novotny a nd in favor of the United States in the event proceeds of the sale did not satisfy the federal tax debt. On appeal, this court affirmed. Prior to the sale of one of the properties, the gov ernment informed the Novotnys that it had discovered an error in the leg al description set out in the order of foreclosure and decree of sale. The Novot nys filed a motion to vacate the order and decree; the government filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to1 Rule 60(a) provides for the correction of “[c]leric al mistakes in judgments”

and “errors therein arising from oversight or omiss ion” at any time. Rule 60(b) allows the court to relieve a party from judgment o n a motion filed “within a reasonable time” for any reason “justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” -3- correct the legal description. The district court denied the Novotnys’ motion, and granted the government’s request. This appeal foll owed. We review the district court’s rulings on the part ies’ post-judgment motions “only for an abuse of discretion.” Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc ., 98 F.3d 572, 576 (10th Cir. 1996) (reviewing ruling on Rule 60(b) motion). See also McNickle v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co ., 888 F.2d 678, 680 (10th Cir. 1989) (reviewing ruling on Rule 60(a) motion). The Novot nys have advanced no comprehensible argument to support their claim thatthe district court abused its discretion by denying their motion to vacate. Furt her, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s grant of the gov ernment’s motion, in that Rule 60 permits the correction of errors such as the inaccu rate legal description at issue here. 1 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Th e Novotnys’ pending motions are DENIED.

Entered for the Court Terrence L. O’Brien Circuit Judge