IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11057

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SHABBAR RAFIQ,

Defendant

MUHAMMED RAFIQ, individually, doing business as ZR Builders, L.L.C.; 

doing business as Tana Corporation, 

Claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-243-3

Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 

* 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

November 1, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11057 Document: 00514707417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2018
No. 17-11057

2

Muhammed Rafiq (Muhammed) appeals the dismissal of three thirdparty forfeiture claims and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b) motion challenging the dismissal of the forfeiture claims. Muhammed

also argues that the district court erred by failing to rule on his request for the 

appointment of counsel, and he moves this court for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP) on appeal. 

To proceed IFP, Muhammed must show that his appeal presents a 

nonfrivolous issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 

586 (5th Cir. 1982). The motion “must be directed solely to the trial court’s 

reasons for the certification decision.” Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into the litigant’s good faith “is limited to 

whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and 

therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) 

(citation omitted). 

The Government is incorrect that Muhammed’s notice of appeal was 

untimely, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B), but correct that because he indicated 

in the notice of appeal that he was appealing only the order denying his 

Rule 60(b) motion, that the order is the only order before this court on appeal,

and that we lack jurisdiction to review any additional orders. See Pope v. MCI 

Telecomms. Corp., 937 F.2d 258, 266 (5th Cir. 1991); see also C.A. May Marine 

Supply Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 649 F.2d 1049, 1056 (5th Cir. 1981).

In the Rule 60(b) motion, Muhammed argued solely that the district 

court should consider his untimely objections to the magistrate judge’s report 

because the report was mailed to the wrong address, thus delaying his receipt 

of the report and constituting excusable neglect. As the district court found, 

the report was mailed to the address provided by Muhammed, and he relied on 

a third-party to mail the objections, which Muhammed does not dispute were 

 Case: 17-11057 Document: 00514707417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2018
No. 17-11057

3

untimely. “Gross carelessness, ignorance of the rules, or ignorance of the law 

are insufficient bases for 60(b)(1) relief.” Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning 

Co., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir. 1993). In addition, he cannot establish any 

prejudice in connection with the district court’s failure to consider his 

objections. See McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (5th Cir. 1994), overruled 

on unrelated grounds, Kansas Reins. Co. v. Congressional Mortgage Corp. of 

Texas, 20 F.3d 1362, 1373-74 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, Muhammed has not 

established that the district court erred by denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See 

Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Likewise, Muhammed has not shown exceptional circumstances 

warranting the appointment of counsel; accordingly, he cannot show that the 

district court erred by failing to appoint counsel. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 

F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Because the appeal does not raise a 

nonfrivolous issue, Muhammed’s motion to proceed IFP is denied, and his 

appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; see also Baugh, 

117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 

MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND MOTION TO STAY 

FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS DENIED. 

 Case: 17-11057 Document: 00514707417 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2018