Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01058/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01058-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jill M. Evans
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JILL M. EVANS, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-1058

(D.C. Nos. 1:18-CV-03243-JLK & 

1:15-CR-00220-JLK-1)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on: (1) the jurisdictional show cause order issued on 

February 24, 2020, challenging the timeliness of appellant Jill M. Evans’s notice of 

appeal; and (2) Ms. Evans’s response to that order. Upon consideration of the response, 

the district court’s docket, and the applicable law, the court dismisses the appeal as 

untimely for the reasons set forth below. 

A timely notice of appeal in a case such as this is both mandatory and 

jurisdictional. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209, 213 (2007). “This Court can 

exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed.” Allender v. Raytheon 

Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006). Ms. Evans’s pro se status does not 

affect this rule. See Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 27, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-1058 Document: 010110326199 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 1
2

1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late). Further, this court has no authority 

to make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 216.

In the case underlying this appeal, the district court entered final judgment against 

Ms. Evans on June 28, 2019. Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure, Ms. Evans’s notice of appeal was due on August 27, 2019, but was 

not received by the district court until February 21, 2020. 

“[T]his court may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Savage v. 

Cache Valley Dairy Ass’n, 737 F.2d 887, 889 (10th Cir. 1984). “Only the district court 

may do so and only under limited circumstances and for a limited time.” See Alva v. Teen 

Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2017(c); Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5)). However, Ms. Evans did not request an extension of time from the district court 

within which to file her notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), and her 

opportunity to do so has expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) (requiring a party to 

move for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal “no later than 30 days after” she 

was otherwise required to file the notice). 

Ms. Evans is likewise ineligible for an order reopening the time to appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (allowing the district court to reopen the time to file an appeal 

only if certain conditions are met). In the absence of a timely filed motion under Rule 

4(a)(6), the district court is without authority to reopen the time to appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6) (providing that district court may reopen the time to file an appeal, “but 

only if all the [specified] conditions are satisfied”).

Appellate Case: 20-1058 Document: 010110326199 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 2
3

As a result, “[t]he time limit has run and [the court is] without jurisdiction under 

the facts of this case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, the court dismisses Ms. Evans’s appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

By: Olenka M. George

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-1058 Document: 010110326199 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 3