Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03229/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03229-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

IN RE: 

CARROL RICHARD OLSON, 

Debtor-Appellant, 

v. 

NINTH DISTRICT PRODUCTION 

CREDIT ASSOCIATION, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee. ) 

DAVID C. SEITTER, 

Trustee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEP 3 C 1992 

R.O -s= '.,. L. i J..;., 

Cle.~ 

No. 91-3229 

(D. Kan., No. 90-2434-0) 

(Bankruptcy No. 90-20852-7) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge. 

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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the district court's order denying 

reconsideration of a minute order of February 27, 1991, which 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 91-3229 Document: 010110392305 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 1
dismissed an appeal from the bankruptcy court for failure to 

comply with time limitations in designating the record. Because 

we find that the district court properly exercised its discretion, 

we affirm. 

In the instant case, the appellant filed a notice of appeal 

on December 11, 1990 from a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order which 

granted relief from stay to the respondents. According to Rule 

710(5) of the Bankruptcy Rules for the District of Kansas, which 

incorporates Bankruptcy Rule 8006, the appellant was required to 

file the "designation of items to be included in the record on 

appeal" and a "statement of issues on appeal" within ten days. 

Over two months later, on February 22, 1991, still not having 

received the necessary documents, the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas dismissed the appeal by minute order. 

On March 7, 1991, the appellant filed the motion currently on 

appeal which, under the deferential pleading rules applied to 

prose defendants, was properly characterized by the district 

court as a motion for reconsideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The 

appellant claimed that he failed to comply with the time 

limitations because he had been hospitalized. However, the 

appellant failed to corroborate this excuse, and the district 

court denied the motion. 

We review the district court's decision to grant or deny a 

motion for reconsideration under an abuse of discretion standard. 

See Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th 

Cir. 1988). We find that it was a proper exercise of the district 

court's discretion to enforce the rules and procedures 

Appellate Case: 91-3229 Document: 010110392305 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 2
establishing time limits for filings and to refuse to grant the 

motion for reconsideration based on unsupported allegations. 

Accordingly, the opinion of the district court for the District of 

Kansas is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3229 Document: 010110392305 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 3