Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01106/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01106-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Jerald Walford Wirkman
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Col.\,.-t of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JERALD WALFORD WIRKMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

T~nth Circuit 

r1ov 2 199 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-1106 

(D.C. No. 89-Z-2148) 

(D. Colorado) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

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. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Jerald Wirkman has filed an appeal of the sentence 

imposed upon him by the district court on March 12, 1990. His 

notice of appeal was filed April 10, twenty-nine days after the 

district court's resentencing order. The appeal is untimely under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), which specifies that it must be filed within 

* 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: 90-1106 Document: 010110051357 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
. ' 

ten days of entry of the judgment or order appealed. Because it 

was filed within thirty days after the expiration of time for 

appealing, during which time the court could have granted an 

extension based upon excusable neglect, we can remand to the 

district court to give defendant an opportunity to demonstrate 

excusable neglect. See United States v. Lucas, 597 F.2d 243, 245-

46 (10th Cir. 1979). We generally do remand when we have, as 

here, a prose appellant. See United States v. Martinez, 681 F.2d 

1248, 1254 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1008 (1982). 

Although the district court found the appeal to be frivolous 

and refused to grant a right to proceed in forma pauperis, its 

judgment was on the merits of the appeal, not on whether there was 

excusable neglect in the late filing of the notice of appeal. 

Although we agree with the government that this pro se 

defendant's brief is so cryptic as to make it virtually impossible 

to understand his contentions, we here express no opinion on the 

merits of the appeal and do not consider the merits of his request 

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis before this court. On 

these issues, we will wait to see if the district court finds 

excusqble neglect for defendant's failure to file a timely appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1106 Document: 010110051357 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2