UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH ANTHONY RANSOM, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 17-3072 

(D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10194-EFM-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Joseph Ransom, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

Ransom was convicted by a jury of multiple drug- and firearm-related offenses. 

After sentencing, defense counsel filed a direct appeal to this court. While that appeal 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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. 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. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

June 27, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

was pending, Ransom filed a pro se Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, which the 

court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ransom timely appealed. 

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Merida 

Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916, 919 (10th Cir. 2005). The filing of a notice of 

appeal generally divests a district court of jurisdiction, United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 

1475, 1488 n.6 (10th Cir. 1996), and Rule 60(b) does not provide an independent basis 

for jurisdiction in a criminal case, United States v. Triplett, 166 F. App’x 362, 365-66 

(10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Ransom has not identified any applicable exception to 

this general rule, and our independent review reveals none.1

 Accordingly, the district 

court did not err in dismissing the motion for lack of jurisdiction.2

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge 

 1

 Although there is no jurisdictional barrier to consideration of a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 petition while a direct appeal is pending, see United States v. Prows, 448 F.3d 

1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006), the district court declined to construe Ransom’s motion 

as a § 2255 petition. Ransom does not challenge that decision on appeal. Krastev v. 

INS, 292 F.3d 1268, 1280 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Issues not raised on appeal are deemed 

to be waived.”). 

2

 Ransom’s direct appeal was resolved during the pendency of this appeal, see 

United States v. Ransom, No. 15-3293, 2017 WL 1959316 (10th Cir. May 11, 2017) 

(unpublished) (affirming conviction and sentence), but that does not alter the fact 

that, at the time Ransom filed his Rule 60(b) motion, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to consider it.