Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-08-08063/USCOURTS-ca10-08-08063-0/pdf.json

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

---

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 29, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAROLD G. HELGESON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

 No. 08-8063

 (D.C. Nos. 05-CR-109 and 08-CV-36)

 (D. Wyo.)

ORDER

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

 Harold Helgeson filed a document construed as a Notice of Appeal in

connection with a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Wyoming. The Notice of Appeal was sent to this court and the

above-captioned appeal was opened.

The document does not comport with Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) in that it

does not "designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed." Since

the § 2255 habeas matter is still pending and no final judgment has been entered

in the district court, it appeared to the court that Mr. Helgeson is attempting to

appeal a district court order that denied his motion for appointment of counsel in

the habeas proceeding.

The court therefore issued an order asking Mr. Helgeson to show any basis

Appellate Case: 08-8063 Document: 01016126256 Date Filed: 09/29/2008 Page: 1 
2

for this court to exercise appellate jurisdiction. The court received a response

confirming that he is indeed attempting to appeal the denial of his request for a

court-appointed attorney.

An order denying a motion for the appointment of counsel is not

immediately appealable, because such an order is fully reviewable after final

judgment has been entered. Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d 1390 1391 (10th Cir.

1981) (emphasis added).

 Except in limited situations that are not present here, this court's appellate

jurisdiction is limited to review of the district court's actions only after a final

judgment has been entered. Albright v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 59 F.3d

1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995). 

There having been no final judgment nor immediately appealable order

entered as yet, there is no basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction. This

attempted appeal is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to Mr. Helgeson’s

right to bring a timely appeal in accordance with the applicable rules and federal

law once a final judgment has been entered in the underlying habeas proceeding. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 08-8063 Document: 01016126256 Date Filed: 09/29/2008 Page: 2