United States v. Melot, 101017 FED10, 17-2052
|Opinion Judge:||NANCY L. MORITZ CIRCUIT JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BILL MELOT, a/k/a Billy R. Melot; KATHERINE L. MELOT, Defendants - Appellants.|
|Judge Panel:||Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 10, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00752-JCH-WPL (D. N.M.)
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
NANCY L. MORITZ CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Proceeding pro se, 1 Billy and Katherine Melot appeal the district court's order denying their motion for relief from judgment. The Melots also request leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant their motions to proceed IFP, but we affirm the district court's denial of their motion for relief from judgment.
Together, the Melots owe the federal government over $20 million in unpaid federal income and excise tax, and Billy is currently serving a 14-year prison sentence for tax evasion. In July 2014, with authorization from the district court, the government foreclosed on the Melots' real property and equipment, sold it for $1.125 million, and applied the proceeds to the Melots' tax debt. This appeal arises from the latest installment in the "ongoing saga of litigation" related to the Melots' unpaid taxes from 1987 through 1993. R. vol. 1, 122; see, e.g.,
United States v. Melot, 606 Fed.Appx. 930 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (affirming order confirming sale of foreclosed property); United States v. Melot, 562 Fed.Appx. 646 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished) (affirming order reducing tax debt to money judgment); United States v. Melot, 732 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming Billy's convictions and remanding for resentencing).
A year and a half after the foreclosure and sale, the Melots filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6), asking the district court to set aside the government's money judgment against them because enforcing it was no longer equitable. After the government responded, the magistrate judge made proposed findings and recommended denying the motion. Despite the Melots' objections to the proposed findings and recommendation, the district court agreed with the magistrate judge and denied the motion. The Melots appeal.
Rule 60(b) allows a district court to provide relief from a final judgment in certain circumstances...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP