Court Opinion

ID: 9839835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 15:01:29.250404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.631647
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 23-1039
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                 Michael G. Wells

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
                                 ____________

                          Submitted: September 11, 2023
                            Filed:September 14, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

     Michael Wells appeals after the district court1 denied his motions to modify a
2003 stipulation for judgment by consent and associated judgment, for

      1
      The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
reconsideration, and for a hearing on reconsideration. Having jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

       Reviewing the parties’ arguments and the circumstances of this case, this
court finds no basis to reverse the district court’s orders. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Wells’s motion to modify the judgment by consent.
See City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147,
1152, 1154 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty.
Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) (party seeking modification of consent decree bears
burden of establishing significant change in circumstances warrants revision of
decree). This court has also considered Wells’s challenges to the denial of his
motions to reconsider and for a hearing, and finds no error. See Arnold v. Wood,
238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (motion for relief from judgment or order is
reviewed for abuse of discretion, and requires showing of exceptional circumstances
warranting relief).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                      ______________________________

                                         -2-