of a receiver’s authority. Since there is simply no legal basis for usurping and encroaching upon the district court’s broad equitable powers in this case, I would affirm the district court’s decision. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review As an initial matter, the majority’s fails to set forth the correct standard of review. The record clearly shows that the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Receiver. The majority appears to argue that the district court’s decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion because the district court’s “ultimate decision was founded on equitable concerns.” (Appellee’s Br. at 21) This standard of review is unsupported by case law. See, e.g., Carter v. RMH Teleservices, Inc., 205 Fed.Appx. 214, 218 n. 4 (5th Cir.2006) (unpublished case) (<HOLDING>). Since this Court reviews a district court’s
holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review is abuse of discretion and an appeal from denial of rule 60b relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review holding that plaintiff incorrectly concludes that an abuse of discretion is the standard of review for summary judgment holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard