Court Opinion

ID: 4309199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-31 16:00:21.998666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:46.586937
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 17-2421
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                            2035, Inc., a corporation

                            lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

 Robert L. Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA and QLasers PMA

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                        ___________________________

                               No. 17-3813
                       ___________________________

                            United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                          v.

                            2035, Inc., a corporation

                            lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Robert Larry Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA, doing business as
                                  QLasers PMA

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                    Appeals from United States District Court
                   for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City
                                   ____________

                            Submitted: August 28, 2018
                              Filed: August 31, 2018
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Robert Larry Lytle appeals the district court’s1 denial of his multiple
postjudgment motions. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
motions. See Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006)
(appellate court reviews denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b) motions for abuse of
discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
                       ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

                                         -2-