Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02267/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02267-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

I 

UNITED STATES 

PILJI) 

United St,atei ~t of A,,.is 

COURT OF APPEALS Ti-nt.h C:ra.:it 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT NOV 9 1QQO 

DAVID L. WALRAVEN, DOROTHY WALRAVEN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

WESTERN BANK, a New Mexico Banking 

Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 89-2267 

90-2070 ' 

(D.C. No. 88-118-M) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before MCKAY, McWILLIAMS, and· EBEL, 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. These cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant appeals from an order of the district court 

entering judgment against defendant. Plaintiffs brought suit 

against defendant and the Small Business Administration (SBA) for 

declaratory relief and to recover damages for alleged violations 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2267 Document: 010110047880 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 1 
I 

of the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code following the sale of 

collateral by the bank, a secured party, after it was awarded 

judgment in state court. Plaintiffs settled with the SBA prior to 

trial and dismissed the SBA from the suit. 

The district 

Defendant filed its 

court entered judgment October 2, 1989. 

notice of appeal, No. 89-2267, with the 

district court November 2, 1989, thirty-one days after the entry 

of judgment. Following this court's request for briefing on the 

issue of whether this court had jurisdiction over this appeal 

because the notice of appeal was filed one day late, ~ 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l), defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 

4(a)(5) with the district court requesting an extension of time in 

which to file its notice of appeal. The district court 

subsequently denied the motion, and defendant filed a timely 

notice of appeal from that order, No. 90-2070. 

Defendant raises two arguments in support of its position 

that appeal No. 89-2267 is timely: (1) the SBA, an agency of the 

United States, was a party and, therefore, defendant had sixty 

days within which to file its notice of appeal; and (2) excusable 

neglect exists such that the district court should grant an 

extension of ti.me to appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5). We find 

neither argument persuasive. 

The SBA was dismissed with prejudice prior to trial. 

However, defendant argues that because the SBA and defendant had 

entered into an agreement concerning the SBA's guarantee of 

plaintiffs' debt, "it is possible" the SBA will pay a portion of 

the judgment. Therefore, defendant argues, the resolution of the 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2267 Document: 010110047880 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 2 
, 

appeal is of interest to the SBA and the sixty-day period of time 

for filing a notice of appeal should apply. 

This court has held that when "the interest of the United 

States has been finally determined prior to the entry of a 

judgment from which an appeal is sought, the United States is not 

a party and the time for appeal is thirty days rather than sixty." 

Macyland Casualty Co. v. Conner, 382 F.2d 13, 15 (10th Cir. 1967); 

accord Costner v. Oklahoma Army Nat'l Guard, 833 F.2d 905, 906 

(10th Cir. 1987). Here the SBA was dismissed by stipulation and 

was no longer a party. Because the government no longer has any 

right to be actively involved, there is no reason to grant a 

sixty-day period in which to file a notice of appeal. See United 

States ex rel. Petrofsky v. Van Cott. Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, 

588 F.2d 1327, 1328 (10th Cir. 1978)(Sixty-day period enacted 

because "the government must process its decision through internal 

channels before a decision [to appeal] is made. Fairness dictates 

that opposing non-governmental parties be given the same time."), 

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 839 (1979). 1 

Defendant filed a Rule 4(a)(5) motion with the district court 

which was denied. Defendant argues that under United States v. 

Lucas, 597 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1979), this court has allowed an 

appeal to continue even though the notice of appeal was late if 

excusable neglect or good cause exists so that the district court 

will permit a late notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(S). 

1 For purposes of this case we need not decide, nor do we 

decide, the instance in which the government is involuntarily 

dismissed, but fails to obtain a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) 

certification so that the possibility of appeal at the end of the 

case is still extant. 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2267 Document: 010110047880 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 3 
I 

✓ 

However, in 1979, after Lucas was decided, amendments to the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were enacted which changed 

Rule 4(a)(5) to provide that "[t]he district court, upon a showing 

of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time for filing 

a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 30 days after 

the expiration of the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a)." 

(Emphasis added.) 

This court has held that the 

amended rule makes clear that in a civil case a request 

for an extension must be made by motion and that the 

motion must be filed within thirty days after expiration 

of the time fixed in Rule 4(a)(l) for filing of the 

notice of appeal ...• Appellant's failure to make a 

motion before the end of the thirty-day grace period 

extinguished his right to appeal beyond revival by 

either this court or the district court. 

Mayfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th 

Cir. 1981), see also Notes of Advisory Committee on Appellate 

Rules, Note to Subdivision (a)(5). 

Here, defendant filed its Rule 4(a)(5) motion February 7, 

1990, more than sixty days after judgment was entered. The 

district court properly denied the motion. 

Defendant's appeal No. 89-2267 is DISMISSED for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction. The judgment of the United States 

District Court for the District of New Mexico in No. 90-2070 is 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2267 Document: 010110047880 Date Filed: 11/09/1990 Page: 4