N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. $11,052.00 IN U.S. C U RRENC Y,

De fe nda nt, v. KENNETH LAM AR SPR ATT, AKA Ke n Sparks, M ova

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 15-56251

D.C . No. 2:14-c v-04648-DSFAGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** B e fore : LEAVY, B ER ZON, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED N OV 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , Spratt’ s re que s t for ora l argum e nt, se t forth in his re

ply brie f, is de nie d.Ke nne th La m ar Spratt, AKA Ke n

Sparks, a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his Fe de ra l R ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b) m o tion for re lie f from judgm e nt in a c i vil forfe iture a c tion unde r 21 U.S.C . § 881(a )(6). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo thede nia l of a m otion unde r R ule 60(b)(4). U

nite d State

s v . $277,000 U.S. C

urre nc y , 69 F.3d 1491, 1493 (9th C ir. 1995). W e re vie w for an a b use of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion under any othe r subse c tion of R

u l e 60(b). C

a se y v . Albe rtson’s Inc . , 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Spratt’ s m o tion for re lie f from

judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b)(1), (3), (5), or (6) be c a use Spratt fa ile d to de m onstra

te any ba sis for re lie f. Se e Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty ., Or. v . AC a ndS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th C i r. 1993) (se tting forth grounds for re lie f from judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b)). The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Spratt’ s R

ule 60(b)(4) m otion be c a

use the forfe iture c om

pla int filing de a dline at 18 U.S.C . § 983(a )(3)(A) doe s not a p ply he re , a s the gove rnm e nt did not c om m e nc e nonjudic ia l c ivil forfe iture proc e e dings. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 983(a )(1)(A) (gove rning “ nonjudic ia l c ivil forfe iture proc e e ding[s] ” ); Unite d Stude nt Aid Funds, Inc . v . Espinosa , 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010) (se tting forth re quire m e nts for obta i ning re lie f unde r R ule 60(b)(4)). 1 5 - 5 6 2 5 1 2To the e xte nt tha t Spratt c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s prior orde rs, we la c k jurisdic tion be c a

use Spratt did not file

a tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l a fte r the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt on Oc tobe r 3, 2014. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 4(a )(1)(B ) (notic e of a ppe a l m ust be file d within 60 da

y s a fte r e ntry

of judgm e nt if one of the pa rtie s is the Unite d State s); Ste

phanie -C a rdona LLC v . Smith’s Food & Drug C trs., Inc . , 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ A tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l is a non-wa iva

ble jurisdic tiona l re quire m e nt .” ). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). Spratt’ s re que sts for re turn of the de fe nda nt funds a nd a n a ward of inte re st and fe e s a re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 5 6 2 5 1 3