No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Robert L. Lytle
v.
Robert L. Lytle
Unpublished
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2421
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
2035, Inc., a corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Robert L. Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA and QLasers PMA
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3813
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
2035, Inc., a corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Robert Larry Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA, doing business as QLasers PMA
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City
____________
Submitted: August 28, 2018
Filed: August 31, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2421
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
2035, Inc., a corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Robert L. Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA and QLasers PMA
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 17-3813
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
2035, Inc., a corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Robert Larry Lytle, an individual, doing business as 2035 PMA, doing business as QLasers PMA
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Rapid City
____________
Submitted: August 28, 2018
Filed: August 31, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Robert Larry Lytle appeals the district court’s1 denial of his multiple postjudgment motions. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motions. See Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). ______________________________
1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
-2-