United States v. Twelve Firearms ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21259
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TWELVE FIREARMS,
Defendant,
versus
RAZA HUSAIN,
Claimant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-295
--------------------
October 28, 2002
Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raza Husain, federal prisoner # 79193-079, appeals the
district court’s denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motions in
this in rem civil forfeiture action. Husain argues that the
district court erred in granting summary judgment for the
Government in the forfeiture action. The merits of the
underlying judgment are not reviewable in an appeal from the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-21259
-2-
denial of a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion. In re Ta Chi Navigation
(Panama) Corp. S.A., 728 F.2d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1984); Travelers
Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., Inc., 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir.
1994). The district court thus did not abuse its discretion in
denying postjudgment relief as to Husain’s claims challenging the
judgment in the forfeiture action. See Seven Elves, Inc. v.
Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).
Husain also challenges the district court’s denial of his
claim that the Government did not return to him all seized
business records. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district
court found that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
returned copies of all seized documents to Husain and that
although the Government may have lost the originals of some of
the receipt books, Husain was not prejudiced. Husain has not
demonstrated that the court abused its discretion in denying
relief on this claim. See Eskenazi, 635 F.2d at 402.
Husain raises for the first time on appeal alleged error in
his criminal conviction, pre-sentence report, and criminal
sentence. We will not address these claims raised for the first
time on appeal. See, e.g., Vogel v. Veneman, 276 F.3d 729, 733-
34 (5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.