A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . T he H on orabl e W esl eyE . B row n, S eniorD i stri ctJudg e, D i stri ctof K ansas, ** s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 15,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT CA RI AL L E N, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. CH . 7 TRU STEE : ELI ZAB ETH LO V ER I D G E; D EPO T A SSO CI A TES; GR ANI T E S T ONE ; I NT E RN AL RE VE NUE S E RV I CE ; OF F I CE OF THE U NI TED STATES TRU STEE ; BR I GHT ON B ANK, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 4002 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CV- 7 1 7 - TC)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BR I EN and BROR BY , C i r cui tJ udges , and B R O WN , D i s t r i ctJ udge. **-2-

Pl ai nt i ff- appel l antC ar i A l l en, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om a di s t r i ct c o u rt o rd e r a ffirm in g o rd e rs o f th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt d e n y in g h e r m o tio n to r emove t he trus t ee i n a C hapt er7 pr ocee di ng i nvol vi ng L og Fur ni tur e, I nc. ( t he r emoval m ot i on) , and l at err efus i ng t o r econs i dert hator der . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on, w e vac at e thatpor t i on of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng t he deni al of the r emoval m ot i on, and w e r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t hatpor t i on of M s . A l l en’ s appea l . W e affi r m t he r emai nderof the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on. T he gene s i s of thi s appea l occurr ed on February4, 2005, w hen the b an k rup tcyco u rtd en ied M s. A ll en ’s rem o v al m o ti o n in the L o g F u rnitu re bankrupt cypr ocee di ng. Pur s uantt o Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( a) , anyappea l of that o rde r t o the d istri ct co u rth ad to b e fil ed “w ith in ten d ay s o f th e d ate o f th e e n try of the . . . order . . . app eal ed from . ” T hat dat e w as Feb ruary14 , 20 05 , un l ess M s . A l l e n h a d f

i l e d a t i mel ymot i on of t he t ype de s c r i be d i n Fe d. R. Bank r . P. 8002( b) . M ot i ons i ncl uded i n R ul e 8002( b) i ncl ude mot i ons “t o al t eroramend t he j udgm entunderR ul e 9023, ” Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( b) ( 2) , and “forr el i ef underR ul e 9024 i f the mot i on i s fi l ed no l at ert han 10 day s aft erthe entr yof j udgm ent , ” i d. 8 0 0 2 (b)(4 ). O n F eb rua ry1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , M s. A ll en fil ed a m o ti o n in the b an k rup tcyco u rt u n d e r R u le 8 0 0 2 (b ) a sk in g th a t co u rt to re c o n sid e r its e a rlier o rd e r re f u sin g to r emove t he trus t ee. O n J ul y1, 2005, t he B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed an or derT he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e do notr ecogni ze a “mot i on for 1 r econs i der at i on. ” See Van Ski verv. Uni t ed Stat es , 9 5 2 F . 2 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). H o w e v e r, b e c a u se th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt u se d th a t term in o lo g yto re fe r to M s . A l l en’ s R ul e 8002( b) m ot i on, w e s hal l do t he s ame fort he s ake of c o n s i s t e n c y. -3- d e n yi n g t h e m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e ro n t h e g r o u n d t h a ti tw a s u n t i m e l y. 1 M s . A lle n ’s n o tic e o f a p p e a l to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s file d J u ly 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 . W e first re v iew th e b a n k ru p tcy co u rt’s d e n ial o f M s. A llen ’s m o tio n to rec o n side r as u n ti m elyb ec au se itco n tr o ls ou r an aly sis of the d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of the r emoval m ot i on. M s . A l l en’ s m ot i on t o r econs i deri s noti n t he r ecor d; w e ther efor e r el yon t he bankrupt cycour t ’ s char act er i zat i on of that m ot i on as one br oughtunderFed. R . C i v. P. 59, i ncorpor at ed i n t he B ankrupt cy R ul es as R ul e 9023. A nym ot i on underR ul e 59 mustbe fi l ed notl at ert han t en da y s a ft e re ntr yof

t he j ud gmen tt ha ti s t he s ubj e c tof t he mot i on . Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 9 ( b ) . B e c a u s e M s . A l l e n ’ s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e rw a s fi l e d m o r e t h a n t e n d a ys af ter th e F eb rua ry4 , 2 0 0 5 , o rde r, itw as u n ti m ely . T h e b an k rup tcyco u rtthere fo re corr ect l ydeni ed i t , and thatdet erm i nat i on w as pr oper l yaff i r m ed byt he di s t r i ct c o u rt. M s . A l l en ar gues t hatt he bankrupt cycour ts houl d have tr eat ed herm ot i on t o r e c o n s i d e ra s o n e fi l e d u n d e rb a n k ru p t c yRu l e 9 0 2 4 , t h e c o u n t e rp a r tt o F e d R. C i v. P. 60. O r di nar i l y , a courtw i l l cons i dera mot i on t o al t eroramend a j udgm entfi l ed more t han t en day s aft ert he entr yof a j udgm entt o be one f i l ed u n d e r R u le 6 0 . See Van Ski verv. Uni t ed Stat es , 9 5 2 F . 2 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 3 (10 th C ir .-4-

1991) . B ankrupt cyR ul e 8002( b) , how ever , adds a fi l i ng deadl i ne t o R ul e 9024 fo r p u rp o s e s o f

to llin g th e a p p e a l p e ri o d th a t F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 d o e s n o t h a v e . R u le 8 0 0 2 (b ) p ro v id e s th a t a R u le 9 0 2 4 m o tio n w ill to ll th e ru n n in g o f th e a p p e a ls per i od onl yi f i t“i s fi l ed notl at ert han 10 day s aft ert he entr yof j udgm ent . ” The adv i sorycom m i t t ee no t e t o the 199 4 am end m ent t o R ule 8002 exp l ai ns: T h e a d d iti o n o f

th is m o tio n c o n fo rm s to a sim ilar a m e n d m e n t to F. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 4) m ade i n 1993, exce ptt hata R ul e 9024 mot i on does nott ol l t he t i m e t o appea l unl es s i ti s fi l ed w i t hi n t he 10- day p e rio d . T h e re a so n fo r p ro v id in g th a t th e m o tio n e x ten d s th e tim e to appea l onl yi f i ti s fi l ed w i t hi n t he 10- dayper i od i s t o enabl e the co u rtan d the p arti es in interest t o d eterm ine s o lel yfro m the c o u rt r ecor ds w hethert he t i m e t o appea l has been e xt ended bya mot i on for re lie f u n d e r R u le 9 0 2 4 . T h u s, w h ethe r co n side red a m o ti o n u n d er R u le 90 2 3 an d R u le 59 , o r a m o ti o n u n d er R u le 90 2 4 , b o th o f w h ich h av e a ten-d ayfil ing li m it , M s. A ll en ’s m o tio n to re c o n sid e r w a s u n tim e lya n d w a s p ro p e rlyd e n ied . T h e u n tim e ly m ot i on t o r econs i derdi d nott ol l t he t en- dayt i m e per i od forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l fr om t he or derdeny i ng t he r emoval m ot i on. T he di s tr i ctcour t , t her efor e, onl yhad j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert he bankrupt cycour t ’ s r efus al t o r econs i dert hat o rd e r. See Wei tz v. Lovelace Heal th Sys . , Inc. , 2 1 4 F . 3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 1 (10 th C ir . 2000) . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overt he appe al fr om t he o rd e r d e n y in g th e re m o v a l m o tio n , w e sim ilarlylac k ju risd ictio n o v e r th e m e rits o f th e re m o v a l issu e a n d a c t m e re lyto c o rre c t th e e rro r o f th e d istric t co u rt in-5-

e n te rt a in in g th a t p a rt o f th e a p p e a l. S e e B e n d e r v . Will ia m sp o rt A re a Sc h . D ist. , 4 7 5 U .S . 5 3 4 , 5 4 1 (1 9 8 6 ). T her efor e, as t o M s . A l l en’ s r emoval m ot i on, w e V A C A T E t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deci s i on and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on. A s t o M s . A l l en’ s m ot i on t o r econs i der , w e A FFIRM t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deci s i on.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt W ade Brorby C i r cui tJ udge