Case ID: f-appx_583/html/0872-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles BARRETT; Kathleen Barrett, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 14-1179.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Nov. 25, 2014.
    Lindsay Laurie Clayton, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, Landon Monte Yost, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Charles Barrett, Hotchkiss, CO, pro se.
    Kathleen Barrett, Hotchkiss, CO, pro se.
    
      Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

■Charles and Kathleen Barrett’s appeal of the district court’s adverse final decision in their case is untimely and we therefore lack jurisdiction to entertain it. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Their appeal challenging the district court’s subsequent decision denying their Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion requesting reconsideration is timely. But the Barretts’ brief discussion of the motion to reconsider in their opening brief doesn’t demonstrate, that Rule 60(b) entitles them to relief, let alone that the district court abused its discretion in holding otherwise. See Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1242 (10th Cir.2006). The Barretts’ informa pauper-is motion is denied. The district court’s disposition of the motion to reconsider is affirmed and the remainder of the appeal is dismissed. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.