Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LONNEKER FARMS, INC.; et al., Defendants, and Robert F. Lonneker, Defendant-Appellant, Federal Land Bank of Spokane, a corporation, aka/Northwest Farm Credit Services, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-16
Citations: 158 F. App'x 897
Docket Number: No. 05-35089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LONNEKER FARMS, INC.; et al., Defendants, and Robert F. Lonneker, Defendant—Appellant, Federal Land Bank of Spokane, a corporation, aka/Northwest Farm Credit Services, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 897–898

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. LONNEKER FARMS, INC.; et al., Defendants, and Robert F. Lonneker, Defendant—Appellant, Federal Land Bank of Spokane, a corporation, aka/Northwest Farm Credit Services, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-35089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 16, 2005.
USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Patricia Lee Johnson, United States Small Business Administration, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff.
Norman K Hunter, Esq., Norman Hunter Law Office, Pomeroy, WA, Larry L. Mundahl, Esq., Huppin, Ewing, Anderson & Paul, Spokane, WA, Patrick F. Hussey, Esq., Anderson Hunter Law Firm PS, Everett, WA, Arthur R. Eggers, Walla Walla, WA, for Defendants.
Kristian Einar Hedine, Esq., Walla Walla, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Robert F. Lonneker, Spokane, WA, pro se.
Thomas T. Bassett, Esq., Lukins & Annis, Spokane, WA.
Darwin D. Grewe, Esq., Casey, Gore & Grewe PS, Spokane, WA, for DefendantAppellee.
Before: GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert F. Lonneker appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate an earlier judgment as void. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. See Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lonneker's motion to vacate a judgment entered sixteen years earlier. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4)(motion must be filed within a reasonable time). Lonneker's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment should have been raised in his prior appeal to this court. See United States v. Lonneker, 865 F.2d 265 (9th Cir.1988); see also Kesselring v. F/T Arctic Hero, 95 F.3d 23, 24 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.