Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04202/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04202-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Tucker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY TUCKER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 07-4202

(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-188-TC)

ORDER

Filed October 10, 2007

Before HENRY, LUCERO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

The case at issue is a pro se appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate sentence

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The habeas motion of Jeff Tucker was denied on May 6, 2004. Over three years

later, on September 14, 2007, Mr. Tucker filed a motion to reopen the time for filing an

appeal. The district court judge granted the motion and authorized Mr. Tucker to file a

notice of appeal within fourteen days. Mr. Tucker accordingly filed his notice of appeal

and we opened Case No. 07-4202.

However, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The relevant rule

provides as follows:

Appellate Case: 07-4202 Document: 010148384 Date Filed: 10/10/2007 Page: 1
2

Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. The district court may reopen the time to

file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is

entered, but only if all the following conditions are satisfied:

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order

sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is

entered or within 7 days after the moving party receives notice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier;

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court’s order expressly finds that Mr. Tucker did not receive timely

notice of the denial of his habeas motion, that he filed his motion to reopen the appeal

within seven days after receiving notice of the entry of the denial order, and that no party

would be prejudiced by allowing the appeal.

However, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(b) requires that the motion be filed within 180

days after the judgment or within seven days after receiving notice, “whichever is

earlier” (emphasis added). The earlier period identified in the rule – 180 days after the

judgment was entered – lapsed at least two years ago. 

In addition to the express language of the rule, the court’s cases make clear that the

“180 day limitation [of Rule 4(a)(6)(b)] is specific and unequivocal” in creating an

absolute deadline beyond which the courts lack authority to equitably grant leave to bring

a late appeal. Clark v. Lavallie, 204 F.3d 1038, 1040 (10th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. London,

Appellate Case: 07-4202 Document: 010148384 Date Filed: 10/10/2007 Page: 2
3

2007 WL 2733715 (10th Cir., Sept. 20, 2007) (unpublished order and judgment); U.S. v.

Marizcales-Delgadillo, 2007 WL 2298134 (10th Cir., Aug. 13, 2007) (unpublished order

and judgment). 

The U.S. Supreme Court also recently emphasized the jurisdictional nature of the

deadlines imposed by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.Ct. 2360

(2007). 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of Mr.

Tucker’s habeas petition. This attempted appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-4202 Document: 010148384 Date Filed: 10/10/2007 Page: 3