Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03121/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03121-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andre Ivory
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDRE IVORY,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-3121

(D.C. Nos. 2:04-CR-20044-KHV-1

and 2:09-CV-02376-KHV)

ORDER

Before KELLY, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

The district court denied the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion of Andre Ivory on February

26, 2010, and entered a separate judgment that same day. Any notice of appeal from that

order and judgment was due within 60 days thereafter. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Any

notice of appeal therefore had to be filed no later April 27, 2010. The notice of appeal

was not filed in this case until May 21, 2010, making it untimely. 

Mr. Ivory also filed a motion with the district court asking for an extension if time

within which to file a notice of appeal. The district court subsequently entered an order

on July 6, 2010, denying Mr. Ivory’s request and declining to construe his letter to the

district court of May 7, 2010 as a motion for extension of time to file an appeal. Doc.

537, No. 04-CR-20044 (D. Kans.). 

Appellate Case: 10-3121 Document: 01018469046 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Page: 1
-2-

This court issued an order on July 7, 2010 permitting Mr. Ivory to show cause

why, in light of the foregoing, his attempted appeal of the district court's judgment should

not be dismissed as untimely. He was made fully aware of the court's jurisdictional

concerns. Mr. Ivory filed a response to the show cause order.

In his response, Mr. Ivory argues that the district court erred in not including in its

final order of February 26, 2010 a statement as to whether that court was going to grant or

deny a certificate of appealability. Mr. Ivory cites to the Rules Governing § 2255

Proceedings for the United States District Courts (“§ 2255 Rules”), Rule 11(a), which

states, in relevant part: “Certificate of Appealability. The district court must issue or deny

a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Mr.

Ivory argues generally that because the district court did not address in its final order

whether a certificate of appealability should issue, the order was incomplete and the time

period within which he had to file a notice of appeal should be tolled. 

The limited circumstances in which the time period for filing a notice of appeal is

tolled are expressly stated in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), and the failure of the district

court to address whether a certificate of appeal should issue is not one of the articulated

circumstances. Moreover, Mr. Ivory's argument conflicts with § 2255 Rule 11(b), which

expressly states, “Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the

time to appeal an order entered under these rules. . . These rules do not extend the time to

appeal the original judgment of conviction.” Finally, Mr. Ivory cites no case in which the

Appellate Case: 10-3121 Document: 01018469046 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Page: 2
-3-

time period for filing a notice of appeal has been extended simply because the district

court did not address the issue of whether to issue a certificate of appealability.

This court construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, but “an appellant’s pro

se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental

requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan

County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Further, the United States Supreme Court has

held that in civil cases such as this, the failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives

the circuit court of appellate jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Bowles v.

Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007). 

For the foregoing reasons, this attempted appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3121 Document: 01018469046 Date Filed: 08/02/2010 Page: 3