Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03184/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrnit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

GEORGE L. HUTTO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

APR 24 1990 

&OBERT L. HOEC 

Clerk 

v. 

No. 89-3184 

(D.C. No. 88-3337-0) 

( D. Kan.) 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

George L. Hutto, an inmate in the United States Penitentiary 

at Leavenworth, Kansas, brought a writ of mandamus claiming that 

his detention on a parole violator's warrant was illegal. The 

district court dismissed the action without prejudice upon 

concluding that Hutto had failed to demonstrate the requisite use 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

R 

Appellate Case: 89-3184 Document: 01019972040 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
of administrative grievance procedures. The court subsequently 

denied Hutto's motion to reconsider and Hutto appealed. 

The judgment dismissing the action was entered on December 9, 

1988. Hutto's motion to reconsider was dated January 5, 1989, and 

file stamped January 14, 1989. This motion was denied July 18, 

1989, and Hutto filed his notice of appeal July 24, 1989. 

The time limitations for filing a notice of appeal set out in 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) are mandatory and jurisdictional. See 

Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 

(1978). When, as here, the United States is a party, the notice 

of appeal must be filed within sixty days after the entry of 

judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l). However, when a timely 

motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 is filed, the time to appeal 

begins to run from entry of the order denying the motion. See 

United States v. 397.51 Acres of Land, 692 F.2d 688, 690 (10th 

Cir. 1982). To be timely, and therefore toll the running of the 

time for appeal, a Rule 59(e) motion must be served not later than 

ten days after the entry of judgment. See Fischer v. United 

States Dep't of Justice, 759 F.2d 461, 465 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Here, Hutto dated his motion to reconsider January 5, 1989. 

It therefore could not have been served earlier than that date, 

which was more than ten days after the entry of judgment on 

December 9, 1988. Because Hutto's motion was not a timely Rule 

59(e) motion, it did not toll the time for appeal, which therefore 

expired sixty days after the December 9, 1988, entry of judgment. 

Accordingly, Hutto's notice of appeal from the judgment entered 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-3184 Document: 01019972040 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
December 9 was not timely, and we have no jurisdiction over the 

appeal from that judgment. 

If we treat Hutto's motion to reconsider as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion, the notice of appeal was timely filed from the 

denial of that motion. Although we do not have jurisdiction to 

review the underlying judgment, we do have jurisdiction to review 

the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. We will 

overturn the refusal to grant a Rule 60(b) motion only for an 

abuse of discretion. See Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 

1143, 1145-46 (10th Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the record, and 

we are convinced that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Hutto's motion for reconsideration. See 28 

C.F.R. § 2.26 (1989); Clonce v. Presley, 640 F.2d 271, 273 (10th 

Cir. 1981) {per curiam); Cook v. Willingham, 389 F.2d 769, 770 

(10th Cir. 1968) (per curiam). 

The order dated August 2, 1989, denying Hutto's motion to 

reconsider is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3184 Document: 01019972040 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3