U.S. v. Mosavi, No. 97-6326

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and FAY; PER CURIAM
Citation138 F.3d 1365
Parties11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1238 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Seyed Ali MOSAVI, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar.
Docket NumberNo. 97-6326
Decision Date14 April 1998

Page 1365

138 F.3d 1365
11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1238
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Seyed Ali MOSAVI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 97-6326
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
April 14, 1998.

Mark B. Flake, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

C. Douglas Jones, U.S. Atty., Shirley T. McCarty and G. Douglas Jones, Assts. U.S. Attys., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Seyed Ali Mosavi, the defendant below, appeals the denial by the district court of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment, in which he sought to have set aside a criminal forfeiture imposed as part of a criminal sentence entered on March 29, 1991. The defendant raises two arguments on appeal: (1) that the forfeiture of property from his brother, Seyed Jomeeh Mosavi ("Jomeeh"), violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process because the property forfeited in fact belonged to the defendant and not his brother, and (2) that no legitimate basis exists for the government's forfeiture of $25,936.23 from the defendant as part of his 1991 sentence. Finding that the district court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction necessary to provide Rule 60(b) relief, we affirm the order of the district court denying the defendant's motion.

I.

On March 27, 1991, the defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to one count of illegally structuring financial transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(3), and one count of food stamp fraud in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b). The defendant's brother and co-defendant, Jomeeh, pled guilty to similar charges at the same time. On March 29, 1991, the district court sentenced the defendant and Jomeeh. Both the defendant and his brother received sentences that mandated the forfeiture of certain real properties held separately by the defendant and Jomeeh. In accordance with the terms of defendant's plea agreement with the government, the defendant later paid the cash equivalent of

Page 1366

$25,936.23 plus accumulated interest in lieu of real property in satisfaction of the forfeiture portion of his sentence. In satisfaction of the forfeiture provisions of his sentence, Jomeeh forfeited his grocery store business located in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
221 practice notes
  • U.S. v. O'Keefe, No. 99-30027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 9 March 1999
    ...of Civil Procedure 60(b), therefore, simply does not provide for relief from a judgment in a criminal case. See United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998). A criminal conviction can be attacked by motion under 28 USC § 2255, but only for errors of constitutional dimension.......
  • United States v. Arrington, No. 12–3073.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 22 August 2014
    ...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rule 60(b)) do not apply to criminal cases. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 1; United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998). But we might also understand Arrington's Rule 60(b) motion to seek whatever relief is available in connection with his ear......
  • Bradley v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-47
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • 17 July 2020
    ...of Civil Procedure 60 simply cannot be invoked to set aside a judgment in a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case."). While a Rule 60(d)(3) motion may be......
  • United States v. Ballard, Criminal Action No. 03–810–01.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 13 April 2012
    ...are not applicable to criminal cases.” Gray v. United States, 385 Fed.Appx. 160, 162 (3d Cir.2010); see also United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (“Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case.”). A federal prisoner challenging his c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
221 cases
  • U.S. v. O'Keefe, No. 99-30027
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 9 March 1999
    ...of Civil Procedure 60(b), therefore, simply does not provide for relief from a judgment in a criminal case. See United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998). A criminal conviction can be attacked by motion under 28 USC § 2255, but only for errors of constitutional dimension.......
  • United States v. Arrington, No. 12–3073.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 22 August 2014
    ...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (including Rule 60(b)) do not apply to criminal cases. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 1; United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998). But we might also understand Arrington's Rule 60(b) motion to seek whatever relief is available in connection with his ear......
  • Bradley v. United States, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:18-cv-47
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • 17 July 2020
    ...of Civil Procedure 60 simply cannot be invoked to set aside a judgment in a criminal prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir. 1998) ("Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case."). While a Rule 60(d)(3) motion may be......
  • United States v. Ballard, Criminal Action No. 03–810–01.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 13 April 2012
    ...are not applicable to criminal cases.” Gray v. United States, 385 Fed.Appx. 160, 162 (3d Cir.2010); see also United States v. Mosavi, 138 F.3d 1365, 1366 (11th Cir.1998) (“Rule 60(b) simply does not provide for relief from judgment in a criminal case.”). A federal prisoner challenging his c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT