Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01804/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

UNITED 

v. 

JERRY 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Statea Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

FEB 2 91988 

STATES OF AMERICA, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellee, } 

} 

} 

} 

GLENN HOLLAND, } 

} 

Defendant-Appellant. } 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1804 

(D.C. No. 84-190-R} 

(W.D. Okla.} 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a}; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

In 1984, defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

manufacture PCP in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He subsequently 

filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion, which was denied by the 

district court, and a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

Appellate Case: 87-1804 Document: 010110028293 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 1 
r 

, 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied 

December 23, 1986. 

On April 23, 1987, defendant filed a motion for relief from 

judgment pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Defendant alleged that 

he had not received a copy of the court's order "through mistake, 

inadvertence, excusable neglect on the part of the postal service 

or the local institution officials whose duty is to deliver legal 

material received by them in petitioner's name." Defendant 

appeals the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. 

Our review of the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) 

motion is limited to determining whether the court abused its 

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

257, 263 n.7 (1978); Devargas v. Montoya, 796 F.2d 1245, 1258 

(10th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds, Newcomb v. Ingle, 

827 F.2d 675 (10th Cir. 1987). 

A party asserting excusable neglect because of failure to 

learn of the entry of judgment in time to file a timely notice of 

appeal must show not only the lack of notice, but also "due 

diligence to ascertain whether the judgment has been entered, or 

suffic i ent reason for the lack of such diligence." Rodgers v. 

Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th Cir. 1983)(en bane). See also 

Wallace v. McManus, 776 F.2d 915 (10th Cir. 1985). Defendant has 

shown neither due diligence nor any reason for the lack of such 

diligence. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1804 Document: 010110028293 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 2 
' 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1804 Document: 010110028293 Date Filed: 02/29/1988 Page: 3