Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04150/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04150-0/pdf.json

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

---

' 

FILED 

United Stacct ~of.Appeals 't'entb Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

TEftH CIRCUIT 

DEC i 6 ,QQO 

:&OBERT L, HOEO<Bll 

UNITED Clerk STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

LORENZO SMITH & SON, INC., ) 

No. 89-4150 

(D.C. No. 88-C-747G) 

(D. Utah) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JODGMEN'l'* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in 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. 

We must first address the issue of jurisdiction. 

This appeal has its origins in the bankruptcy court. There 

the court ordered the IRS to honor designations appearing on 

debtor's checks for payment of its pre-bankruptcy federal tax 

liability under its Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The 

* 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: 89-4150 Document: 010110097389 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 1 
, 

designations directed the IRS to apply the payments to the "trust 

fund" portion of that liability. On October 6, 1989, the district 

court issued its order affirming the bankruptcy court. It is this 

order ·that the IRS seeks to appeal. 

The facts necessary to our resolution of the jurisdictional 

question are undisputed. The district court executed and filed 

the final order on October 6, 1989. The order reflects that 

copies were mailed to counsel on October 10, 1989. The IRS filed 

its Notice of Appeal on December 14, 1989, sixty-nine days after 

entry of judgment. 

Rule 4(a)(l) of the F~deral Rules of Appellate Procedure -

provides that in a case where the United States is a party, the 

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

the final order. This obviously was not done. We directed the 

parties to file supplemental briefs addressing this jurisdictional 

question. 

The IRS seeks to avoid Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) by claiming a 

mistake in the district clerk's office. The IRS points out that 

in June of 1989 the clerk co11Dnenced an internal change-over 

whereby the docket entry system would be changed from a manual 

"paper" system to an "automated" system. The IRS concedes that 

all entries were properly made and correctly retrievable under the 

"paper" system at all relevant times. The IRS states that persons 

could request computer printouts of case docket sheets; the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4150 Document: 010110097389 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 2 
, 

service did this and the computer printout showed an "entry date" 

of October 16, 1989. The IRS alleges it relied upon the October 

16 date and argues this to be the "entry" date of the order for 

the purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l). The IRS cites no cases 

to us in support of its argument. 

We must first note that the IRS simply misread the computer 

printout. The clerk's office entered the docket sheet entries 

into the computer. The date this was done, October 16, 1989, 

bears the legend "entry date." The printout clearly reflects, in 

two separate and distinct entries, that the order in question was 

signed and entered, and that the case was closed on October 6, 

1989. We further note that although the IRS argues the _computer 

printout reflects two dates, there are in fact three dates listed, 

one of which is included with these unmistakable words: "Order, 

affirming Bankruptcy Court decision signed by JTG 10/6/89." 

Our jurisdiction is not discretionary. We either have 

jurisdiction to review a final order or we do not. The appeal 

time limit established by Rule 4(a)(l) is both mandatory and 

jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). 

Even if we were to hold that an ambiguity existed in the clerk's 

records, which we do not, we still would not acquire jurisdiction. 

Colvin v. Woods, 180 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1950). It is appellant's 

duty to ascertain the correct date. Appellant does not dispute 

that it timely received a certified copy of the district court's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-4150 Document: 010110097389 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 3 
• ~ 

final order showing the date of entry. Appellant has no one to 

blame for its error except itself. We do not have jurisdiction. 

This appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-4150 Document: 010110097389 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 4