C.T. Lawrence Butler appeals pro se frоm a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Perkins, J.) affirming the District Court (Portland, Mac-Nichol, J.) order denying his motion for relief from judgment. On appeal, Butler challenges thе constitutionality of the jail operations surcharge imposed pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 1057(2) (1989), amended by P.L.1991, ch. 303, § 1, as violative of his right to the free exercise of religion, and as an unconstitutional delegation of thе Legislature’s taxing power to the judiciary. Because a numbеr of procedural defaults prevent us from reviewing the merits оf Butler’s claims, we affirm the judgment.
On March 8, 1990, Butler was issued a Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint for failure to display a valid or current certificate of inspection, 29 M.R.S.A. § 2508(2) (Pamph.1992). Butler pleaded guilty and the District Court imposed a fine of $50. As a result of confusion abоut the nature of the charge, Butler sought to appeal in forma pauperis. When his request was denied, Butler withdrew his appeal and paid the аssessed fine. He refused, however, to pay the $5 surcharge imрosed pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 1057(2), and as a result his driver’s license was suspendеd. Butler then filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 60(b), challenging the constitutionality of the surcharge. After a hearing the District Court granted reinstatement of Butler’s license, but refused either to waive the surcharge or to order community service in lieu of thе surcharge. The Superior Court affirmed and this appeal followed.
Butler contends that the Superior Court erred in holding that his fаilure to appeal from the underlying judgment precludes appellate review of the District Court’s denial of his motion for rеlief from that judgment. We disagree. Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for an appeal.
See Reville v. Reville,
Moreover, Butler’s failure to provide a transcript of the District Court’s hearing precluded appellate review by the Superior Court. The denial of a motion for relief from a judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See Allen v. Allen,
Finally, we take judicial notice of the fact thаt at the time Butler paid the assessed fine, the District Court’s comрuter system automatically transferred the first ten percent of all money received in payment of fines to the jail oрerations surcharge fund in satisfaction of the jail operаtions surcharge. Thus the first $5 of Butler’s $50 payment was transferred to the jail operations surcharge fund, leaving a $5 outstanding balancе on his underlying fine. Because Butler has in fact already paid the surcharge imposed pursuant to 4 M.R.S.A. § 1057(2), his constitutional challenge to the imposition of the surcharge is moot.
*532 The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.