UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ 358 LIBERATION, LLC, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. No. 18-1267 (D.C. No. 1:15-CV -01758-RM-STV) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ 358 Liberation, LLC (“Liberatio n”), appeals from a district co urt order denying its motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Exercisi ng jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I In March 2018, the district cour t granted in part the motion o f Country Mutual Insurance Company (“CMIC”) to en force a settlement agreement be tween it and

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel ha s determined unanimously to honor the parties ’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Th e case is therefore submitted without oral argument. T his order and judgment is no t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, an d 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. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 10, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 Liberation. The district court de termined Liberation was bound by its agreement to settle the claims against CMIC for $25, 000. The parties filed a joint motion seeking entry of judgment so Liberation could ap peal. On May 9, 2018, the distr ict court granted that motion and entered judgment accordingly. The last day for Liberation to file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment was June 8, 2018. See Fed. R . App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Liberation filed its notice of appeal on June 10. On June 12, Liberatio n filed an unopposed motion t o extend the time to appeal. Liberation’s counsel st ated they had di scussed filing the notice of appeal with their paralegal, but the paraleg al inadvertently forgot to file the notice of appeal due to her significant workload and the approaching one-year anniversa ry of her mother’s passing. Liberation’s counsel fo rgot to ensure the notice was filed that evening. The district court denied Liber ation’s motion for an extension , concluding Liberation’s claims of inadverten ce were insufficient to establ ish excusable neglect or good cause for an extension. The court explained Liberation’s counsel knew an appealable judgment had been ent ered on May 9, but nonetheless waited until the final possible day to file the notice of appeal.
II We review a district court’s re fusal to extend the time to fil e notice of an appeal for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we will not d isturb the district court’s d ecision absent “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judg ment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in t he circumstances.” Id. (quota tion omitted).3 “The district court may extend t he time to file a notice of ap peal if . . . a party so moves no later than 30 days af ter the time prescribed by . . . Rule 4(a) expires[ ] and . . . that party shows excusable neg lect or good cau se.” Fed. R. App . P. 4(a)(5)(A). Liberation timely sought an exte nsion, so we assess whether Lib eration demonstrated good cause or exc usable neglect. Good cause “comes into play in situations i n which there is no fault—excusable or otherwise. In such situations, t he need for an extension is us ually occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant.” Bisho p, 371 F.3d at 1207 (quotation omitted). B ecause Liberation’s failure to meet the notice-of-appeal deadline was entirely of its own making, it cannot demonstrate the distr ict court abused its discretion for failure to grant th e extension on good cause gro unds. Excusable neglect requires circu mstances that are unique and e xtraordinary. Id. at 1206-07. In assessing excusable neglect, we consider “the dang er of prejudice to the nonmoving party, the length o f the delay and its potential impa ct on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, includi ng whether it was within the r easonable control of the movant, and whether t he movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 12 06 (alteration and quotation omitted). And excusable neglect is generally not sat isfied by mere inadvertence, see United States v . Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1163- 64 (10th Cir. 2004), such as missing the appeal deadline du e to a heavy workload, Lang v. Lang (In re Lang), 414 F.3d 1191, 1200 & n .27 (10th Cir. 2005). Liberation argues the district c ourt abused its discretion in refusing to extend the deadline to appeal because it fo cused on the reason for missing the deadline, and did not4 address the other factors: prej udice to CMIC; length of the de lay in filing the notice of appeal and the impact on judicial proceedings; and whether Libe ration’s delay was in good faith. We disagree. Counsel ’s reason for missing the dea dline is “perhaps the most important single factor . . . in de termining whether neglect is excusable.” Torres, 372 F.3d at 1163 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Utah Republican Party v . Herbert, 678 F. App’x. 697, 701 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpubl ished) (explaining “the fact t hat the movant’s counsel is professionally engaged in other m atters is not sufficient, as a matter of law, to show excusable neglect”). And although Liberation’s paralegal faile d to timely file the notice of appeal because of a heavy workl oad and emotional strain, Lib eration’s counsel, entirely without justification , forgot to check whether the app eal had been filed. Moreover, the district court addressed good faith. Specifical ly, the district court explained Liberation’s counsel k new the deadline was approachin g, as counsel joined a motion seeking entry of judgment so Liberation could appeal, bu t nonetheless failed to promptly file a notice of appeal. For these reasons, the distr ict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Liberation’ s motion to extend the appeal deadline.
III
We AFFIRM the district court’s order. Entered for the Court

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge