Page:United States v. $29,410.00.pdf/5

 his neglect because of his attorney's alleged inability to comply with the applicable law and procedure. The Supreme Court has long rejected "the contention that dismissal of petitioner's claim because of his counsel's unexcused conduct imposes an unjust penalty on the client. Petitioner voluntarily chose this attorney as his representative in the action, and he cannot now avoid the consequences of the acts or omissions of this freely selected agent." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633-34 (1962); accord Gripe v. City of Enid, 312 F.3d 1184, 1189 (10th Cir. 2002). There was no abuse of discretion in entering the default judgment.

Moore's remaining appellate arguments challenge the government’s search and its seizure of the currency as well as its grounds for forfeiture. Because the default judgment was properly entered, we need not, and therefore do not, address merits arguments. Moore's motion for leave to file a rebuttal appendix is denied. The proffered materials are print-outs from websites apparently offered for their persuasive authority on the merits of the forfeiture, but there is no indication they were submitted to the district court. ''Cf. Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co.'', 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir. 2008) ("We generally limit our review on appeal to the record that was before the district court when it made its decision."). - 5 -