Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02197/USCOURTS-ca10-91-02197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL.-• J , United States ~rt<?f Appea .. c 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS r.renth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROSETTE, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LEO EDWARD BERGSCHNEIDER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) (D. C. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FEBO t 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 91-2197 

& 

92-2115 

No. CIV-87-1115-JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

Before LOGAN and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and LUNGSTRUM,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

These appeals stern from a diversity action commenced in 

August 1987. The district court entered final judgment in 

* 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: 91-2197 Document: 010110165519 Date Filed: 02/01/1993 Page: 1 
defendant's favor on September 29, 1989. 

plaintiff filed a motion for 

On December 8, 1989 , 

reconsideration, s ee 

Fed . R. Civ. P. 60 , which the district court denied on July 17, 

1991. Plaintiff, on August 19, filed an admittedl y untimely 

notice of appeal from the denial of reconsideration. That appeal 

is No. 91-2197. 

On August 23, plaintiff filed with the district c our t a 

motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from 

the denial of reconsideration. After initially granting the 

motion, the distr ict court ultimatel y denied the extension of 

time. In appeal No. 92-2115, plaintiff timely appeals the denial 

of the extension of time. 

Although conceding that the first notice of appeal was 

untimely, see Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a) (1 ) , plaintiff argues that the 

untimely notice of appeal was the result of excusable neglect, 

entitling plaintiff to an extension of time in which to file the 

notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a) (5) . This court will 

not disturb the district court's decision denying the motion for 

an extension of time absent a clear abuse of discretion. 

v. Peterson, 930 F.2d 1502, 1505 (10th Cir. 1991) . 

consideration of the record and the parties' arguments on 

Romero 

Upon 

appeal, 

we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion . 

We, therefore, AFFIRM the district court's order at issue in 

appeal No. 92-2115 denying the motion for an extension of time to 

file the notice of appeal. 

In light of that conclusion, the notice of appeal filed in 

appeal No. 91-2197 remains untimely. Because a timely notice of 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-2197 Document: 010110165519 Date Filed: 02/01/1993 Page: 2 
appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite, see, e.g., Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Evans, 896 F.2d 1255, 1256 

(10th Cir. 1990), we must DISMISS appeal No. 91-2197 for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court 

John W. Lungstrum 

District Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-2197 Document: 010110165519 Date Filed: 02/01/1993 Page: 3