Ubl v. Savin Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1617
THOMAS M. UBL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SAVIN CORPORATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:97-mc-00117-JCC)
Submitted: December 22, 2006 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Victor Kubli, Alan M. Grayson, Mary E. Harkins, GRAYSON & KUBLI,
P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Douglas
N. Letter, Charles W. Scarborough, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas M. Ubl seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion. We have reviewed the
parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible
error. Because we find Ubl’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, brought nearly
eight years after the order he seeks to be reopened was issued, was
untimely, we affirm the district court’s order on those grounds.
Because we affirm the district court’s order on modified grounds,
we decline to address whether the audit conducted by the Government
constitutes an “alternate remedy” for purposes of the Civil False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5) (2000). See United States v.
Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th Cir. 2005) (“We are not limited to
evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support
its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the
record.”). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
- 2 -