WPC4 ?I4+M6I! jڽ}0hr}2h~wON =cV@gX]ˍĔ{ZHxN3fdA969y_{$_}nיY2r̹@?hS\ forfeiture. d` x` x  ThatbringstheinremdefendantswithintheambitofSection  881(a)(7),whichrendersforfeitable: z 8 ` Allrealproperty,includinganyright,title &v andinterest(includinganyleasehold L interest)inthewholeofanylotortractof " landandanyappurtenancesorimprovements,  whichisused,orintendedtobeused,inany ~  mannerorpart,tocommit,ortofacilitate T ! thecommissionof,aviolationofthis *!z" _subchapter_Ԁpunishablebymorethanoneyears "P# imprisonment."&$` x` x  ` Bishopsconcessionremovesanypossibilityofagenuine $& issueofmaterialfactthatcoulddisputetheforfeitabilityofthe .&~!( properties.Thatbeingso,hisobjectiontothedistrictcourts '*#* grantofsummaryjudgmentbasedontheGovernmentsassertedlack )$, ofprooffallsofitsownweight.ButevenwithoutBishops 2+&. concession,theUnitedStatesprovidedampleadditionalevidenceof  asubstantialconnectionbetweenBishopsdrugtraffickingandhis \ properties. X  ` Forexample,theGovernmentdemonstratedthatfive   parcelsofrealpropertywereforfeitablebyvirtueoftheirrole `  infacilitatingdrugtransactions.Astothe6FoxStreet  \  property,theGovernmentsubmittedevidencethattheWindham,N.H.   policeofficersdiscoveredmarijuanaanddrugparaphernaliathere d  inearly1986,thenfoundtwoplasticbagscontainingmarijuanaand `  alargescalewhenrespondingtoaburglaralarmthereayear   later.Thenin2001policeseizedfromthelocationmarijuana, h drugparaphernaliaandcash,aswellasdrugrecordsreflecting20 d yearsofdrugdistribution.   ` Undisputedfactsalsoconfirmthatthepropertywhere l Bishoplivedduringhishighschoolyears,9to11HarrisonStreet h inLowell,wasusedformarijuanastorageanddistribution.In  November1996officersseizeditemsusedtofacilitatedrug p  traffickingfromthatproperty,andagainBishophasadmittedthat !l" hestoredanddistributedmarijuanafromthatlocation. "$  ` Astotheparcelnextdoor,13HarrisonStreet,both t$& Bishopspartnerandhistenantsdistributedmarijuanafromthat  &p!( property.Evidencethataguitarcasebearing20sevenpound '#* bricksofmarijuanawasseizedatthatlocationoffersampleproof x)$, thattheconnectionbetweenthepropertyanddrugtraffickingwas $+t&. indeedsubstantial.   ` Finally,theresidenceat33LundbergStreetinLowell \ wasalsousedforBishopsdrugactivities.Bishopinitially X purchasedthatpropertyusingdrugproceeds,thenrenteditto   tenantswhointurnboughtmarijuanafromBishop. `   ` Insum,inlightoftheundisputedmaterialfactsthat  \  conclusivelyestablishtherequisitesubstantialconnectionbetween   eachofthosepropertiesanddrugsales,thedistrictcourt d  properlygrantedsummaryjudgmentforfeitingthemtotheUnited `  States.Bishopschallengeastothoseparcelsfails.    ` Inadditiontotherealproperty,inremdefendantsthat h werealsosubjecttoforfeitureincludeitemscoveredbySection d 881(a)(6):  8 ` Allmoneys,negotiableinstruments, l securities,orotherthingsofvaluefurnished B orintendedtobefurnishedbyanypersonin h exchangeforacontrolledsubstanceorlisted > chemicalinviolationofthis_subchapter_,all  proceedstraceabletosuchanexchange,and  allmoneys,negotiableinstruments,and p  securitiesusedorintendedtobeusedto F ! facilitateanyviolationofthis_subchapter_.!l"` x` x OnthatscoreBishopdidnotdisputethathislegitimateincome "$ sincetheearly1980sneversufficedtosupportthepurchaseofthe t$& propertiesatissue.Moreover,abriefreviewoftheevidence  &p!( demonstratesthattheGovernmentscasedidnotatallrestonmere '#* inferencesfromthatfact. x)$,  ` Forexample,inAugust2001officersfoundinBishops $+t&. freezer$2,193inUnitedStatescurrencythatreekedofmarijuana  storedinthesamefreezer.InthatsamemonthBishoptransmitted \ a$10,000downpaymentfor50poundsofmarijuanatoaseller X cooperatingwiththeGovernment.Withoutquestionthosefundsmet   therequirementsofSection881(a)(6). `   ` Asfortheremainingproperties,theGovernmentsubmitted  \  evidencethatBishopslegitimateemploymentasacarsalesperson   couldnotsupporthislavishspending.Forexample,in1996and d  1997Bishopcontributed$2,000toaninvestmentfundeventhoughhe `  reportednotaxableincomewhatever.In1998hereportedtaxable   incomeof$3,451,yetheopenedaCharlesSchwabmoneymarket h accountwithtwocashierschecksfor$10,000and$6,093.67.In d 2000Bishopalsomadea$15,000cashdownpaymenttopurchasean  Audi,andin2001hemadea$5,600cashpaymenttowardthepurchase l ofaPorsche.Bishopalsomaintainedothercarsandmotorcyclesby h payingforrepairsincash.   ` Inlightofthatcongeriesoffacts,itwasmorethan p  rationalforthedistrictcourttodeterminethatallofthe !l" propertieswerebought,atleastinpart,withproceedsfromdrug "$ sales.Bishopconcededasmuchand,indeed,failedtoofferany t$& countervailingevidence.Underthecircumstancesthedistrict  &p!( courtreallyhadnochoicebuttograntsummaryjudgmentinthe '#* Governmentsfavor. x)$,  ` Unabletocontestforfeitureonthemerits,Bishopfalls $+t&. backonarequestforaremandtoenablehimtopresentevidence  thattheDEAnecessarilyhadknowledgeofhisillegalactivities \ before1996andthatheearnedlawfulincometosupporthis X lifestyleduringtheperiodinquestion.ButBishopsopportunity   toprofferadditionalfactshascomeandgone,forhefailedto `  produceanysuchfactswhenrespondingtotheUnitedStates  \  summaryjudgmentmotion.Withthatnothavingbeendoneatthe   districtcourtlevelwhenitwasappropriatetodoso,Bishop d  cannotproperlysalvagetheissuenow(seesuchcasesasStates `  ResourcesCorp.v.ArchitecturalTeam,Inc.,433F.3d73,85(1st   Cir.2005)). h @0 0 IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel d  ` Bishopfirstadvancedanassertedstatuteoflimitations  defenseinhisresponsetotheGovernmentsmotionforsummary l judgment.TherehecontendedthattheGovernmenthadfailedto h filetheactionwithinthelimitsimposedby19U.S.C.1621:  8 ` Nosuitoractiontorecoverany...forfeiture p  ofpropertyaccruingunderthecustomslaws F ! shallbeinstitutedunlesssuchsuitoraction !l" iscommencedwithinfiveyearsafterthetime !B# whentheallegedoffensewasdiscovered,orin "$ thecaseofforfeiture,within2yearsafter #% thetimewhentheinvolvementoftheproperty t$& intheallegeddefensewasdiscovered, J% ' whicheverwaslater.... &p!(` x` x Thatclaimwasrejectedbythedistrictcourt,whichfoundthat '#* Bishophadforfeitedthatdefensebyfailingtoraiseitina x)$, responsivepleading.Andevenwerethatnotthecase,thedistrict $+t&. courtheldthattheproceedingwasnottimebarredinanyevent.   ` DuringthislitigationBishopchangedlegal \ representationtimeandagain.Givenhisevershiftingparadeof X lawyers,itisnotentirelysurprisingthatBishopwouldarguethat   anassertedfailuretoreceiveeffectiveassistanceofcounsel `  causedthestatuteoflimitationsdefensetogounpleaded.  \   ` Bishopurgesthathewasfirstfailedbyoriginalcounsel   MichaelNatola( Natola),whowasinitiallyretainedbyBishops d  girlfriend.Despitenotyetbeingnamedascounselofrecord, `  NatolafiledanansweronBishopsbehalfinNovember2001--a   pleadingthatdidnotraisealimitationsbasedaffirmative h defense.InOctober2002BishopmovedtohaveNatolawithdrawand d successfullyaskedleaveforPhilipDesFosses( DesFosses)to  representhim.TheninJanuary2004DesFossesfiledamotionto l withdraw,althoughthedocketsheetdoesnotreflectwhetherthat h motionwasgranted.ShortlythereafterBishopfiledaprose  motiontosetasidetheforfeiture,whichclaimedthatthe p  Governmenthadfailedtoprovidenoticeandbrieflymentioneda !l" possiblestatuteoflimitationsissue.Thatmotionwasdenied. "$  ` WhentheUnitedStatesthereafterfileditsmotionfor t$& summaryjudgmentandaccompanyingbrief,Bishopfiledamotion  &p!( requestingthatcounselbeappointedtorepresenthim.Mary '#* Notariswasinitiallyappointed,butwhenshefailedtorespondto x)$, thedistrictcourtsordersMichaelSheehan( Sheehan)was $+t&. appointedtoreplaceher.ItwasSheehanwhofiledtheObjectionon  behalfofBishopandraisedthestatuteoflimitationsdefense, \ thoughhedidnotmovetoamendBishopsproseanswertoinclude X thestatuteoflimitationsdefenseevenaftertheGovernmenthad   highlightedthatproceduraldefectinitsreply. `   ` Whenthedistrictcourtthenheldthatthestatuteof  \  limitationsdefensehadbeenforfeitedbecauseitwasneverpleaded   inBishopsanswer,heincludedanineffectiveassistanceof d  counselclaiminthecurrentappeal.Butthatclaimisdeficient `  inmorethanonerespect.    ` First,theSixthAmendmentsguarantyofeffective h assistanceofcounselincriminalproceedings(see,e.g.,Evittsv. d Lucey,469U.S.387,395(1985))doesnotextendtocivil  proceedings.Likeoursistercircuitsthathaveconsideredthe l issue,wehaveconsistentlyrejectedtheavailabilityofsucha h claimincivilforfeitureproceedings(see,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.  OneLotof$25,721inCurrency,938F.2d1417,1422(1stCir.1991) p  andcasescitedthere). !l"  ` Indeed,Bishopsattemptedchiefsupportforhis "$ ineffectiveassistanceclaim,Glennv.Aiken,569N.E.2d783,787 t$& (Mass.1991),hastaughtthat [a]failureofadefendantscounsel  &p!( inacivilcasetopleadanobviouslywinningaffirmativedefense '#* wouldbeaproperbasisforamalpracticeclaim.IfthenBishop x)$, hadavalidlimitationsdefensethatwaslostbecauseofthe $+t&. inadequacyofcounsel,hisremedywouldhavetobefoundinsucha  claim,notintheConstitution. \  ` Butnopotentiallyviableclaimofineffectiveassistance X existsinanyevent,forBishopiswrongonthemeritsaswell.   BishopcontendsthattheUnitedStatesforfeitureactionwasbased `  onhiscriminalactivitiesfrom1983through1987,whichheurges  \  wouldhavebarredtheforfeitureactionbecauseitwasbroughtin   2001,wellbeyondthestatutesfiveyearlimit.Bishopargues d  thatinformationgatheredandknowninthe1980sbystateandlocal `  policeagenciesshouldbeimputedtofederalinvestigators.But   under19U.S.C.1621thestatuteoflimitationsistriggeredonly h whentheUnitedStatesitselfdiscoversthataparticularassetis d involvedinanoffense.   ` OnthatscoreBishopdidnotproduceevenashredof l evidencesupportinghisclaimthatfederalofficerswereawareof h hiscriminalactivitybefore2001.Whilehecontendsthatalocal  policeofficersubmittedhis1996drugarrestinformationtothe p  DEAdatabase,evenifthatwerethecasetheGovernments2001 !l" filingdatewouldstillfallwithinthestatuteoflimitations. "$  ` Onthisissueaswell,then,Bishopsfundamentalfailure t$& toprovideanyproofbeyondmereconclusorystatementsdoomshis  &p!( attackonthedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment.Hence '#* thedistrictcourtsconclusionthattheforfeitureactionwas x)$, timelyfiledstandsaswell. $+t&. @!FraudontheCourt   ` Bishopseekstodrawonefinalarrowfromhisquiver, \ assertingthatthejudgmentagainsthimbelowwasobtainedby X  fraudonthecourtinviolationofRule60(b)(6),whichpermits   relieffromafinaljudgmentforanyreason justifyingrelieffrom `  theoperationofjudgment.InthatrespectSimonv.Navon,116  \  F.3d1,5(1stCir.1997)hasexplainedthatan [a]ppellantfaces   formidablehurdlesinpursuinga60(b)(6)claim.Theremustexist d  exceptionalcircumstancesthatjustifyextraordinaryrelief. `  Simon,id.furtherdescribesthe extraordinarycircumstances   exceptiontothenormallylimitedscopeofRule60(b)(6)asa h  smallescapehatch--onethatisunavailabletoBishophere.To d mixmetaphors,Bishopsimplycannotsurmountthehighbarthatis  setforreliefunderthatprovision. l  ` AccordingtoBishop,theGovernmentsattorneys h perpetratedafraudonthecourtwhentheysubmittedaffidavits  fromlocalNewHampshirelawenforcementagentsswearingthatthere p  wasnocontactbetweenthemandfederalagentsaboutBishopsdrug !l" activitiesbefore2001.Bishopcitestheabsenceofanymentionin "$ thoseaffidavitsoflocalofficerGoldnershavingpurportedly t$& submittedinformationabouthis1996arresttotheDEAnational  &p!( databasepursuantto28_C.F.R._Ԁ( Reg.)0.101. #  4      ׀Bishopattempts '#* todrawontwoprovisionswithinReg.0.101toconcludethatthe  Governmenthadtohaveknownwhatthelocallawenforcement \ officialsknewbackin1996.ThoseprovisionsmaketheDEA X responsiblefor (a)...cooperationwithStateandlocalGovernments   intheenforcementoftheirdrugabuselawsand (b)development `  andmaintenanceofaNationalNarcoticsIntelligencesystemin  \  cooperationwithFederal,Stateandlocalofficials....    ` ButBishopreliessolelyontheregulatorylanguage, d  withoutanycorroboratingevidence,toassertthatinformationthat `  localofficersobtainedin1996 wouldhavenecessarilybeen   submittedtoandrecordedbythe[DEA]. Simplybecausethe h GovernmentneversubmittedanyinformationaboutBishopfromthe d DEAsdatabase,heattemptstodraw theinescapableinferenceof  eitherwillfulblindnessordeliberateconcealmentofsuch[DEA] l recordsfromthemid1980'sand1996. h  ` EvenapartfromthepointmadeearlierthatifGoldner  hadsubmittedinformationaboutBishoptotheDEAdatabasein p  November1996,thefilingoftheforfeitureactioninAugust2001 !l" wouldstillhavebeentimely,Bishopsclaimisalsofatallyflawed "$ becausehefailedtopresentaRule60(b)(6)motiontothedistrict t$& court.InthatregardsuchcasesasRogerEdwards,LLCv.Fiddes  &p!( &SonLtd.,427F.3d129,132(1stCir.2005)instructthat Rule '#* 60(b)permitsadistrictcourttoreopenafinaljudgmentforany x)$, ofsixstatedreasons,thesixthandlastofwhichembraceswhat  iscalled fraudonthecourt.And [n]ominally,thestandardof \ reviewfordecisionsgrantingordenyingRule60(b)motionsis X abuseofdiscretion.    ` Herethereisnodistrictcourtdecisiontoreview. `  Havingfailedtoraisetheissuebeforethedistrictcourt,Bishop  \  cannotnowdosobeforeus.AsToscanov.Chandris,S.A.,934F.2d   383,38687(1stCir.1991)hasexplainedtotheappellantsthere: d  8 ` [I]fRule60(b)wastobeinvokedwhilethe `  casewasonappeal,theyshouldfollowthe 6 procedurelimnedinCommonwealthofPuerto   Ricov.SSZoeColocotroni,601F.2d39,42  (1stCir.1979)(ifanappealispending,aRule h 60(b)motionshouldfirstbefiledinthe > trialcourt,andthedistrictjudge,if d inclinedtoallowit,maythenrequest : remand).` x` x JustaswastrueoftheappellantsinToscano,Bishophascometo l adeadendforhavingfailedtofollowtheproperprocedurefor h bringingaRule60(b)(6)motion.   ` Butthereisstillanother--anddispositive--groundfor p  holdingBishopsfinalarrowbrokenaswell.Evenifhecould !l" establishhisnowunsupportedallegationsabouttheGovernments "$ actions,theywouldstillnotmeetthestandardthatRogerEdwards, t$& 427F.3dat133hasconfirmedforpartieswishingtooverturna  &p!( judgmentbasedon fraudonthecourt: '#* 8 ` Thecaseshavestruggled,usuallywithout x)$, greatsuccess,toprovideausefuldefinition N*%- of fraudonthecourt.Onecommonversion, $+t&. drawninpartfromlanguageinHazelAtlas +J'/ [GlassCo.v.HartfordEmpireCo.,322U.S.  238(1944)],refersto anunconscionable  schemecalculatedtointerferewiththe \ judicialsystemsabilityimpartiallyto 2 adjudicateamatterinvolvinganofficerof X thecourt..` x` x Evensuchanoffenseasperjurymaynotsuffice--insteadthetype   ofconductthatwouldqualifyas fraudonthecourtmustbe 6   somethingontheorderofbribingajudge(seeid.).  2   ` Bycontrast,Bishopsunsupportedassertionsinthis   area,evenifhecouldbuttressthemwithsomefactualsupport(as :  hehasnot),are--liketheallegationsinRogerEdwards,427F.3d 6 at133-- atmosttheroutinestuffofclaimsunderRule60(b)(3)  andareweakexamplesevenofthat.Bishopneversoughtrelief > underRule60(b)(3),andhisfallbackclaimunderRule60(b)(6)is : unavailing.  @%Conclusion B  ` BishophasfailedtomeethisburdentodefeattheUnited > Statesmotionforsummaryjudgment.Wethereforeaffirmthe  districtcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment. F !  ` AFFIRMED.