Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04060/USCOURTS-ca10-19-04060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Gunter
Appellant
Cory Pulsipher
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID GUNTER, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CORY PULSIPHER, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 19-4060

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00574-TC)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER∗

_________________________________

Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Petitioner-Appellant David Gunter seeks to appeal from the district court’s denial 

of his application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Gunter is 

serving a state sentence for aggravated sexual abuse of a child and lewdness. Mr. 

Gunter’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Gunter, 304 P.3d 866 (Utah 

Ct. App. 2013), but Mr. Gunter did not file a certiorari petition with the Utah Supreme 

Court. He unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief. Gunter v. State, No. 

2017416-CA (Utah Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2018), cert. denied, 20180174-SC (Utah May 7, 

2018).

 ∗

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res 

judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 15, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-4060 Document: 010110289285 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 1
2

Mr. Gunter claimed in his federal habeas petition that (1) the trial court erred by 

conducting the trial in his absence, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) 

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court held that Mr. Gunter had 

procedurally defaulted the first two grounds. Gunter v. Pulsipher, No. 14-cv-00574-TC, 

2019 WL 977903, at *5 (D. Utah Feb. 28, 2019). On the third ground, the district court 

held that Mr. Gunter failed to establish that the state court’s application of Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) was unreasonable. Id. at *8. The district court entered 

judgment on February 28, 2019. Mr. Gunter now seeks a certificate of appealability 

(COA) so that he may appeal. We conclude that Mr. Gunter failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal and we consequently lack jurisdiction to address his application for COA or the 

merits of his appeal. We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting an extension 

of time to file a notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal as untimely without reaching the 

request for a COA or the merits, but grant Mr. Gunter’s request to proceed IFP.

Mr. Gunter was required to file his notice of appeal under within 30 days after 

entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Mr. Gunter filed a misdirected notice of 

appeal in this court on April 22, 2019. This court issued a show cause order on April 26, 

2019 observing that the appeal appeared to be untimely. The order also noted that only 

the district court may grant extensions and then only for limited times and reasons. Mr. 

Gunter responded by letter requesting an extension of time to file. The letter was dated 

May 1, 2019, but the envelope was postmarked May 6, 2019, and did not contain a 

declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement stating the date 

it was deposited and that first-class postage was prepaid. This court issued an order on 

Appellate Case: 19-4060 Document: 010110289285 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 2
3

May 16, 2019 reminding Mr. Gunter that this court may not extend the time for filing a 

notice of appeal and the need to provide proof in writing of compliance with Fed. R. App. 

4(c)(1). Mr. Gunter filed a response on June 7, 2019, stating that he thought he had filed 

a certificate of service with the letter and that he would be more diligent in the future.

On June 10, 2019, Mr. Gunter moved the district court for an extension, claiming 

that he had filed late because of delays conferring with state-provided counsel that were 

outside his control. Respondent did not oppose the request and the district court granted 

it for good cause shown pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i), deeming the April 22 

misdirected notice of appeal timely under the extension.

The district court erred by granting Mr. Gunter’s motion for an extension. Timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). We review a district court’s grant of an extension for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1160 (10th Cir. 2004). Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) allows district courts to grant an extension upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause only if “a party so moves no later than 30 days after the 

time prescribed by [] Rule 4(a) expires” (emphasis added). Mr. Gunter’s Rule 4(a) period 

expired on April 1, 2019.1 His period to move the district court for an extension ran until 

May 1, 2019. He failed to so move the district court until June 10, 2019, and the April 

 1

 Thirty days from February 28, 2019 (the date of entry of judgment) is March 30, 2019, 

a Saturday. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) provides that a period ending on a Saturday 

continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a weekend or holiday. April 1, 

2019 was a non-holiday Monday.

Appellate Case: 19-4060 Document: 010110289285 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 3
4

22, 2019 cannot be deemed timely given its deficiencies. The district court therefore 

lacked authority to grant an extension.

The district court abused its discretion by granting Mr. Gunter’s motion for an 

extension of time. Accordingly, Mr. Gunter’s April 22, 2019 notice of appeal was 

untimely filed and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter. See Torres, 372 F.3d at 

1161, 1164. We therefore VACATE the district court’s November 11, 2019 order 

granting an extension and do not reach Mr. Gunter’s request for a COA. We GRANT 

Mr. Gunter IFP status and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 19-4060 Document: 010110289285 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 4