United States v. Cardona Arrendondo ( 1999 )

USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit









No. 98-1755



                          UNITED STATES,



                       Plaintiff, Appellee,



                                v.



                        TWENTY ONE ITEMS,

                  Valued at $24,663.12, et al.,



                      Defendants, Appellees,

                       ____________________



                   ALFONSO CARDONA ARRENDONDO,



                       Claimant, Appellant.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



          [Hon. Jaime Pieras, Jr., U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Lipez, Circuit Judge.







     Alfonso Cardona Arrendondo on brief pro se.

     Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Miguel A. Fernandez,

Chief, Civil Division, and Jacqueline D. Novas, Assistant United

States Attorney, on brief for appellee.









MARCH 4, 1999











            Per Curiam.  Claimant Cardona-Arredondo appeals from

    the denial of his motion to reconsider or amend the judgment to

    include an award of interest.  Below, the government had argued

    that interest was not recoverable in this case under the

    governing caselaw; but in this court the government concedes

    that the relevant caselaw does not bar an award of interest.

              Instead, the government argues here that the denial

    of interest should be affirmed because, (1) claimant's motion

    to reconsider or amend the judgment was untimely, or (2)

    claimant is estopped from demanding interest by the doctrine of

    "accord and satisfaction."

              Having carefully reviewed the briefs in light of the

    entire record on appeal, we reject the government's arguments.

    First, the doctrine of "accord and satisfaction" is inapposite

    to the facts of this case.  Second, the motion for

    reconsideration or to amend the judgment was timely filed.  The

    ten-day time for the filing of the motion ran from entry of the

    court's judgment on February 25, 1998.  It did not run from

    the June 10, 1997 entry of the order dismissing the

    government's claim on limitations grounds, as the government

    contends.  The June 10, 1997, judgment was not "final" because

    it did not resolve all issues still pending between the

    parties.

              Since the government has conceded the only legal

    issue raised in this appeal, and argues no supportable

    alternative basis for an affirmance, the order denying an award

                                  -2-

    of interest is vacated, and the case is remanded to the

    district court for a determination of the amount of interest

    owed to the claimant.

              Vacated and remanded for further proceedings

    consistent with this decision.