Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02182/USCOURTS-ca10-07-02182-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodolfo J. Gonzales
Appellant
Internal Revenue Service
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

 Petitioners - Appellees,

v.

RODOLFO J. GONZALES,

 Respondent - Appellant.

No. 07-2182

(D.C. No. MC-07-17-BB)

ORDER

Filed November 7, 2007

Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Respondent Gonzales appeals from the district court’s April 18, 2007 Order

enforcing an administrative summons issued by the Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”), and the July 26, 2007 Order warning Respondent that if he fails to produce

requested bank statements, “he may be held in contempt, arrested for civil contempt

of Court and held until such time as he can appear before this Court to show cause

why he failed to comply with the direct order of this Court.” 

Respondent’s appeal of the April 18, 2007 Order is untimely. This order

constituted an appealable final decision on the date of entry. See Church of

Appellate Case: 07-2182 Document: 010164994 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 1 
2

Scientology of California v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 18 n.11 (1992). Under Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), the sixty-day deadline for filing a timely notice of appeal

expired on Monday, June 18, 2007. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). Pro se appellants

must comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that

govern all litigants. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.

1994). Respondent filed his notice of appeal on July 27, 2007, which was thirtynine days past the sixty-day filing deadline. Compliance with filing requirements

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” See Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2363

(2007). 

Respondent also appeals the July 26, 2007 Order warning Respondent of

possible contempt if he fails to produce the requested bank statements for the IRS.

This order is not final. The district court did not hold Respondent in contempt and

did not “impos[e] specific, unavoidable sanctions.” Consumers Gas & Oil, Inc. v.

Farmland Industries, Inc., 84 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-2182 Document: 010164994 Date Filed: 11/07/2007 Page: 2