Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08015/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Wyoming
Respondent
Dennis W. Crozier
Petitioner
Duane Shillinger
Respondent

Document Text:

\ FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

TP1"t}, t>; .. ,.,,it 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DECO 7 1990 

DENNIS W. CROZIER, 

Petitioner, 

v . 

DUANE SHILLINGER and the ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, 

Respondents. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-8015 

) (D.C. No. C87-278K) 

) ( D. Wyo.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, BALDOCK, and EBEL, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before us for consideration, on our own 

motion, of the court's jurisdiction. 

Appellant is a Wyoming state prisoner. After his first 

post-conviction application to the state district court was 

* 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: 89-8015 Document: 010110097234 Date Filed: 12/07/1990 Page: 1 
denied, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus order under 

28 u.s.c. § 2254, in the United States District Court for the 

District of Wyoming, Dist. Ct. No. C87-278-K. 

In that petition, he raised two issues not previously 

presented to the state Supreme court, namely, unnecessary delay in 

being held by arresting authorities prior to arraignment and 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On November 7, 1987, the 

petition was dismissed for lack of total exhaustion under Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). No appeal was taken. The second 

petition, also denied for failure to exhaust state remedies, was 

filed and dismissed in early 1988. 

In June of 1988, 

C88-0158. He raised 

petitioner filed a third 

five issues, including 

petition, No. 

the ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. 

ineffectiveness issue had 

Again the court determined that 

not been properly exhausted 

dismissed the petition on July 21, 1988. No appeal was taken. 

the 

and 

On January 19, 1989, appellant filed a document styled 

"Motion for Reconsideration or Amendment of Judgement [sic]" under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in case No. C87-0278-K. However, the 

judgment he sought to have amended was the court's order of July 

21, 1988, dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus in No. 

C88-0158. The motion was mistakenly (understandably) filed in No. 

C87-0278-K. The district court denied the motion by order dated 

February 1, 1989, explaining precisely the steps needed to be 

taken to exhaust the remaining claims. 

Motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) 

within ten days of the entry of final judgment. 

2 

must be made 

Only a timely 

Appellate Case: 89-8015 Document: 010110097234 Date Filed: 12/07/1990 Page: 2 
motion will toll the running of the appeal period. This motion 

was filed fourteen months after the dismissal of the habeas 

petition in No. C87-0278-K and six months after entry of final 

judgment in No. C88-0158. 

either judgment. 

Thus the motion was untimely as to 

Consequently, the notice of appeal is untimely, and this 

court is without jurisdiction over the appeal. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a). 

The appeal is DISMISSED, and the mandate shall 

forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

issue 

Appellate Case: 89-8015 Document: 010110097234 Date Filed: 12/07/1990 Page: 3