Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06118/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Cowley
Appellee
Ronald Gene Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

, ... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RONALD GENE SMITH, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

FILED 

U •.i....J States Court of Ap~b 

nlwu ... c· 't Thnb ~?'CUl 

AUG 2 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

JACK COWLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL,) 

) 

No. 91-6118 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1670-B) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

Petitioner Ronald Smith attempts to appeal the denial of his 

motion to extend the time for filing an appeal from the denial of 

his petition for habeas corpus. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). 

Because the record does not reveal such motion was ever filed nor 

any order thereon ever entered, we dismiss this appeal. 

Smith filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma seeking relief 

* 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: 91-6118 Document: 010110133298 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 1 
from his criminal conviction in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals. This habeas petition was number CIV-90-1670-B in the 

district court. On December 26, 1990, the district court 

dismissed this petition. 

In this appeal, Smith does not appeal the dismissal. He 

claims that he moved the district court for an extension to appeal 

the denial of his habeas petition and that the district court 

denied this motion. Smith claims to be appealing to this court 

the district court's denial of his motion for an extension. 

The record does not contain any request by Smith for an 

extension to appeal the dismissal of the habeas petition in CIV1 90-1670-B. Nor, obviously, does the record contain an order by 

the court responding to a motion to extend the time to file a 

habeas appeal. Without a final order to review, we have no 

jurisdiction. See 28 u.s.c § 1291. 

1 Although it is not part of the record, we notice that Smith 

has filed a very similar appeal in this court (No. 91-6074) that 

may occasion confusion in the instant case. That appeal deals 

with the denial of a motion to extend the time for filing an 

appeal from the denial of a separate habeas petition. On November 

30, 1990, the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma 

denied Smith's petition for habeas corpus from a different 

Oklahoma conviction. That district court case was No. CIV-90-

1501-B. Smith failed to timely appeal the district court's denial 

of that habeas petition and Smith sought to extend the time for 

filing an appeal from that dismissal. The district court denied 

the extension. Smith appealed the denial of the extension to this 

court in No. 91-6074. 

The record in Smith's appeal No. 91-6074 does contain a 

letter from Smith requesting he be permitted to appeal the denial 

of habeas in CIV-1501-B out of time. The record also contains the 

district court order denying that request. However, there is no 

mention in either the request or the order regarding CIV-1501-B of 

an extension to appeal the instant case, CIV-1670-B. 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6118 Document: 010110133298 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 2 
, . 

Smith has not made a substantial showing of the denial of an 

important federal right, see Barefoot Y..!.. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 

(1983), or presented a reasoned argument on the law and facts in 

support of the issues raised on appeal, see Coppedge Y..!.. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Therefore we DENY the motion for 

certificate of probable cause, DENY in forma pauperis, WAIVE the 

fees, reach the merits, and DISMISS the appeal as frivolous under 

28 u.s.c § 1915. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6118 Document: 010110133298 Date Filed: 08/23/1991 Page: 3