Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05004/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05004-0/pdf.json

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

---

·-

KARL 

RON 

WAYNE TIGER, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 92-5004 

) (N.D. Okla., No. 

CHAMPION, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

l t • 

SEP 3 ~ 1992 

;,;,~TL. HOE ' < 

C :r 

89-C-290-E) 

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. 

Karl Wayne Tiger, a prisoner at the Oklahoma State 

Penitentiary, appeals from the district court's order denying his 

motion to alter or vacate the court's prior order denying his 

application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

His appeal was challenged on jurisdictional grounds under Federal 

* 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: 92-5004 Document: 010110392323 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 1
Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l). 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l) requires a party 

wishing to appeal in a civil case to file a notice of appeal with 

the clerk of the court within 30 days after the date of entry of 

the order appealed from. Extensions are permitted, but only under 

limited circumstances. 

The thirty-day time limit is "mandatory and jurisdictional." 

Browder v. Department of Corrections of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264 

(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 

(1960)). The court of appeals has no jurisdiction to review an 

order appealed unless a timely notice of appeal has been filed. 

See id. at 265; Senjuro v. Murray, 943 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir. 

1991); Lobato v. Pay Less Drug Stores, 261 F.2d 406, 408 (10th 

Cir. 1958). 

We can find nothing in the record that suggests Tiger's 

notice of appeal was timely filed. The district court entered the 

order that Tiger now appeals on September 20, 1991. [R. at 16] 

Tiger's notice of appeal is file-stamped "Dec. 27 1991" by the 

clerk of the Northern District of Oklahoma. [R. at 17] The 

docket confirms the accuracy of these dates. [R. at 2] Tiger, 

however, claims that he timely filed his notice of appeal on 

September 27, 1991, and that "through either inadvertance [sic] or 

mistake said Notice of Intent was not filed until 12-27-91." 

Appellant's Response to the Court Order to Show Cause, at 1. The 

date, "September 27, 1991," does appear in the text of Tiger's 

notice to appeal; however, it seems to indicate the date Tiger 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-5004 Document: 010110392323 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 2
believed the district court's original order was issued. The 

notice of appeal reads in part: 

R. at 17. 

Notice is hereby given that Karl Wayne Tiger ... 

appeals ..• from the final order or judgment of the 

District Court entered in this action on the 27th day of 

September, 1991. 

In its Order granting Tiger a Certificate of Probable Cause 

for appeal, the district court stated that "[a]fter perusal of 

said notice and the file in this cause, the Court finds ... that 

the notice of appeal is timely filed .••. " Because we can find 

nothing in the record indicating that the notice was indeed timely 

filed, we remand to the district court to give reasons to support 

its conclusion that the appeal was timely filed. 

The order of the district court issuing the Certificate of 

Probable Cause is REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-5004 Document: 010110392323 Date Filed: 09/30/1992 Page: 3