Bank One Texas N A v. E T S E Incorporated, et al

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50184
Summary Calendar
BANK ONE TEXAS N.A.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
ETSE INCORPORATED; ELY EYAL;
SHARON EYAL; TALY EYAL,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(MO-98-CV-57)
January 21, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
On November 4, 1998, the district court entered a final money
judgment against Appellants on their contract of guaranty with
Appellee, Bank One. Appellants did not file a post-judgment motion
to alter or amend this final judgment within ten days, in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); neither did Appellants file
a notice of appeal within thirty days, as required by Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a). Instead Appellants filed a motion to “determine the
commercial reasonability” of a prejudgment sale of collateral more
than 60 days after the district court entered judgment. This

-- 1 of 2 --

2
motion, however, did not plead or attempt to establish any of the
legal bases authorizing either an extension of time to file a valid
notice of appeal, in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(B), or
relief from a judgment, under the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b).
Consequently, the district court correctly concluded that it
had no jurisdiction to grant relief on Appellants’ post-judgment
motion under these circumstances.
The judgment of the district court is therefore
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --