Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-05142/USCOURTS-ca10-24-05142-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

RENEL BREWER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENTNER F. DRUMMOND, Attorney 

General of Oklahoma, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 24-5142

(D.C. No. 4:23-CV-00483-SEH-CDL)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, TYMKOVICH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se petitioner Renel Brewer appealed the district court’s order and judgment 

denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After the appeal was 

opened, this court observed that the notice of appeal was not filed timely and ordered the 

appellant to demonstrate appellate jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 

27.3(B). Mr. Brewer filed in this court a motion requesting a reopening of the time to 

appeal, which was denied without prejudice to renewal in the district court. Mr. Brewer 

then filed a motion seeking relief from the late notice of appeal in the district court, 

which that court later denied. This court again directed Mr. Brewer to show cause as to 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Brewer 

filed a memorandum brief explaining the chain of events leading to his untimely appeal. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 14, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-5142 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 1
2

Upon review of the memorandum brief, the district court record, and the applicable 

authorities, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

“This court can exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed. A 

timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Allender v. Raytheon 

Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). A notice of 

appeal in a § 2254 case like this one must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see Manco v. Werholtz, 528 F.3d 760, 762 (10th Cir. 2008) 

(order) (applying civil 30-day deadline to appeal in § 2254 proceeding and dismissing 

untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction). Although the appellant is proceeding pro se, he 

must comply with the same procedural requirements that govern all litigants. Yang v. 

Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se status ‘does not excuse the 

obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal 

Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.’” (quoting Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 

452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994))). 

Mr. Brewer’s notice of appeal from the judgment was filed after the deadline 

expired. Judgment was entered September 27, 2024 (Dist. Ct. ECF 13). The notice of 

appeal was due by October 28, 2024. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) 

(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment) & 26(a)(1)(C) 

(due date shifts to next business day when deadline falls on weekend). The notice of 

appeal was filed December 6, 2024 (ECF No. 56), 39 days after the filing deadline 

expired. 

Appellate Case: 24-5142 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 2
3

Mr. Brewer sought relief in the district court from the late notice of appeal (Dist. 

Ct. ECF 21). See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) (on motion of party, district court may reopen time 

to appeal to appeal under certain conditions); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (same). The district 

court declined to provide relief, however (Dist. Ct. ECF 22). Mr. Brewer has not 

separately appealed that order.

In light of the above, Mr. Brewer cannot remedy his late appeal of the judgment. 

Nothing he offered in his memorandum brief in response to the court’s jurisdictional 

show cause order alters this conclusion. To the extent Mr. Brewer asks this court to find 

extraordinary circumstances to allow his appeal to continue, we lack authority to grant 

such relief. The United States Supreme Court has made clear this appellate court “has no 

authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

In sum, Mr. Brewer’s notice of appeal from the final judgment is late and 

unexcused. Consequently, we conclude that “[t]he time limit has run and we are without 

jurisdiction under the facts of this case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.3d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 

1995). The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-5142 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2025 Page: 3