# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 34 51

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ W il li am Vaug hn

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Marc h 3 , 20 14 Fi le d: Marc h 6 , 20 14 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

W il li am Vau gh n br ou gh t th is act io n in th e di st ric t co ur t, as se rti ng , in te r al ia , 1 th at th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e ha d i l l e g a ll y co ll ect ed ta xe s on wag es he ha d

Th e Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.earn ed

. He no w app eal s an ad ve rs e p os t-ju dg m en t o rd er. Upo n caref ul rev ie w, we
co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n den y in g h is m ot io n t o
am en d th e jud gm en t, pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 59 (e). See Uni te d St at es v. Met ro

. St

. Lou is Sewer Dis t., 44 0 F.3 d 93 0, 93 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (Ru le 59 (e)

m ot io ns se rv e li m it ed fu nc ti on of co rrec ti ng m an if e s t e rro rs of la w or fact or to pr es en t ne wly di sc ov ered ev id en ce; de ni al of Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Gerad s, 99 9 F.2 d 12 55 , 12 56 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m ) (wag es are wit hi n de fin it io n of in co m e un de r In te rn al Rev en ue Co de an d Si xt een th Am en dm en t, an d are su bjec t t o t a xa ti on ). W e fu rth er co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Vau gh n’s po st -jud gm en t req ue st fo r le av e to fil e an am en de d co m pl ai nt

. See Hor ras v. Am

. Cap it al S t r a t e g i e s , 7 29 F.3 d 79 8, 80 4 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed , No. 13 -8 43 , 20 14 W L 17 70 56 , at *1 (U.S. Feb

. 24 , 20 14 ) (d en ia l of po st -jud gm en t req ue st fo r le av e to am en d co m pl ai nt rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n; di st ric t co ur t m ay ap pr op ria te ly de ny le av e to am en d whe re, fo r
ex am pl e, am en dm en t wo ul d b e fu ti le ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. W e al so gr an t th e go ve rn m en t’s

m ot io n fo r sa nc ti on s, an d we a s s e s s s a nc ti on s in th e am ou nt of $2 ,00 0. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 19 12 ; Fed

. R. App

. P. 38 ; Gerad s, 99 9 F.2 d at 12 56 -5 7 (g ran t i n g g o v e r nm en t’s m ot io n fo r $1 ,50 0 in sa nc ti on s whe re ap pe ll an ts ha d ad va nc ed o n ap pe al fri vo lo us “ ta x- pr ot es to r” ar gu m en ts th at ha d b een rep eat ed ly rejected ).

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

W e ov erru le Vau gh n’s ap pa ren t ob jecti o n t o t h e cl erk ’s or de r th at th e 2
sa nc ti on s m ot io n b e ta ke n wi th th e cas e. -2

-