Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01368/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Martino Widjaja
Appellant

Document Text:

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

After examining the briefs and the 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument..

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 27, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARTINO WIDJAJA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 07-1368 and 08-1079 

(D.C. No. 07-cr-111-EWN)

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

This case consolidates two appeals by pro se Defendant Martino Widjaja. 

Defendant appeals both the criminal judgment against him, for which he filed an

untimely appeal, and the district court’s subsequent denial of his request for an

extension of time in which to file his appeal. 

A magistrate judge found Defendant guilty of possessing a firearm on

Appellate Case: 07-1368 Document: 01014248656 Date Filed: 08/27/2008 Page: 1 
-2-

Veterans Administration property in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(b)(37). The

district court affirmed the judgment on August 9, 2007. Defendant filed his

motion to appeal on September 9, 2007, well past the ten-day deadline for filing

an appeal, but within the time allowed to move for an extension of time to appeal. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4 (b)(1)(A)(i), 4(b)(4). This court partially remanded the

case to the district court to permit Defendant an opportunity to show good cause

or excusable neglect for his failure to file a timely appeal. On December 13,

2007, the district court gave Defendant until January 3, 2008 to make this

showing. 

On January 2, 2008, Defendant filed a document the court construed as

Defendant’s motion to show good cause or excusable neglect in order to seek an

extension of time. In the motion, Defendant stated that he was late in filing his

notice of appeal because a court employee referred him to the court website for

information, and he read on the website that he had forty days to file an appeal. 

The district court did not question Defendant’s good faith apparent misreading of

the website’s accurate information but concluded that the error did not constitute

excusable neglect and thus denied Defendant’s motion. Defendant thereafter filed

a “Motion to Present Evidence of Motive,” which this court construed as a

misdirected notice of appeal. 

We review a district court’s order refusing to grant an extension of time for

abuse of discretion. See Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir.

Appellate Case: 07-1368 Document: 01014248656 Date Filed: 08/27/2008 Page: 2 
-3-

2004). A district court should not extend the time for filing an appeal unless

presented with “circumstances that are unique and extraordinary.” Id. at 1207

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when deciding

neither Defendant’s ignorance of the law nor his good faith error in misreading

the court’s website constituted good cause or excusable neglect for his untimely

filing. For substantially the reasons listed in the district court’s order and

memorandum of decision, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision not to grant

Defendant an extension of time for filing. We therefore DISMISS his original

appeal as untimely.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1368 Document: 01014248656 Date Filed: 08/27/2008 Page: 3