UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner - Appellee,

v. HARMAN WRIGHT GROUP, LLC, Respondent, and TYTUS W. HARKINS; JASON M. WHITE, Respondents - Appellants. No. 18-1476 (D.C. No. 1:18-MC-00190-CMA) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , BACHARACH , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Tytus W. Harkins and Jason M. W hite (together, Appellants), pro ceeding pro se, appeal from the district court’s order compelling them to comply with

* 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). The case is ther efore 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 14, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 subpoenas issued by the Securiti es and Exchange Commission (SEC ). The district court’s order is a final decisi on that affords us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
E.E.O.C. v. Dillon Cos. , 310 F.3d 1271, 1272 (10th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
BACKGROUND Appellants are founding principa ls and officers of Hartman Wri ght Group, LLC (HWG). They, as well as HWG , are the subjects of an SEC in vestigation. Appellants failed to comply with testimonial subpoenas issued b y the SEC, causing the SEC to file in the district court an application to compel compliance. 1
The district court set a show-cau se hearing and directed Appell ants to respond to the SEC’s application within s even days after receiving noti ce. The order further stated that “[i]f a response is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the Application as conceded.” R., Vol. II at 6. The district court then granted Appellants’ motion for an exten sion, setting a November 13, 201 8, deadline for the response. On November 13, Appe llants mailed their documents, w hich the district court received and filed on Novemb er 15. The SEC filed a reply on November 20. The day after the SEC filed its r eply, the district court issue d its order compelling Appellants to comply with the subpoenas. It held th at the SEC had satisfied the four requirements for a court to enforce an admin istrative agency

1 HWG also was subpoenaed and was named as a respondent to the S EC’s application to enforce, but it has not appealed. The governmen t states that HWG produced documents after the dis trict court held it in contempt

.3 investigative subpoena. See R., Vol. II at 215-16 (citing United States v. Powell , 379 U.S. 48, 57-58 (1964)). The d istrict court further stated: Moreover, in this Court’s order granting the SEC’s application for an order to show c ause, the Court indicated that Respondent s were required to file a timely respons e to the SEC’s motion. Additi onally, the Court advised that if a res ponse is not filed within the pr escribed time, the Court may treat the A pplication as conceded. After t his Court granted Respondents an exten sion of time to respond, Respondent s still failed to enter a ti mely submission. Respon dent[s’] response w as due on 11/13/2018. However, Responde nts did not submit any filings until 11/15/2018. Therefore, in light o f Respondents’ untimely respo nse and the evidence submitted by the SE C, this Court finds that Respon dents should be compelled to comply w ith the administrative subpoenas

. Id. at 217-18 (record citations and in ternal quotation marks omitt ed). It later summarily denied Appellants’ m otion for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION We review for abuse of discreti on both the order compelling com pliance and the order denying reconsideration. Walters v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 703 F.3d 1167, 1172 (10th Cir. 2013) (Fed. R. C iv. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motions) ; Dillon Cos. , 310 F.3d at 1274 (order regarding administrative subpoenas). “ An abuse of discretion occurs when the dist rict court bases its ruling on a n erroneous conclusion of law or relies on clearly e rroneous fact findings.” Walters , 703 F.3d at 1172 (internal quotation marks omitted). Before this court, Appellants do not challenge the requirements for enforcement that the district c ourt identified or the court’s r easons for determining that the SEC satisfied those re quirements. Inst ead, they reite rate the arguments they made in their motion for reconsid eration—that the district cour t erroneously4 disregarded their response as un timely and issued its order pre maturely because they did not have time to file a sur -reply. Appellants also request an award of costs. In asserting that their filings w ere timely, Appellants rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), which provides, “[w]hen a p arty may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is mad e under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail), (D) (leaving with the clerk), or (F) (other means cons ented to), 3 days are added aft er the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a) .” Appellants were not permitt ed to use the court’s electronic filing system and were served by mail. Apparently t his caused them to believe that they had three days b eyond the district court’s No vember 13 deadline to file their documents. Appellants are mistaken. When th e district court granted their motion for an extension, it did not direct them to act “within a specified ti me after being served.” Rather, it ordered a set date—Nove mber 13—as the deadline. In those circumstances, Rule 6(d) did not apply. Because Appellants’ re sponse was not filed with the court on or before N ovember 13, it was untimely. Moreover, regardless of the un timeliness of the response, the d istrict court did not issue the order solely on th e ground of any concession by A ppellants. Before discussing timeliness, it identif ied the requirements for enfor cing an administrative subpoena and analyzed those requi rements, finding each satisfie d. And as part of that discussion, it noted Appella nts’ responsive arguments. As stated, Appellants do not dispute this portion of the d istrict court’s order, which i n itself supports the order compelling compliance.5 Appellants also complain that the district court ruled before t hey were able to finish preparing a sur-reply to t he SEC’s reply in support of i ts application. Appellants, however, had no righ t to file a sur-reply. While t hey cite “FRCP Rule 27(a)(3)(4),” Aplt. Opening Br. a t 3, Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 is ina pplicable. The language they quote 2 is from Rule 27(a)(4) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. As an appellate rule, Rule 27(a)(4) di d not control the briefing of t he SEC’s motion to compel compliance, and in any ev ent, the rule provides for a re ply, not a sur-reply. Further, Appellants have failed to present any reason why they should have been allowed the unusual privilege of filing a sur-reply—particularl y, they give no reason why the arguments they wanted t o make in their sur-reply had no t been available to them when they filed their res ponse just a few weeks earlier.
CONCLUSION Because Appellants fail to show tha t the district court’s order s compelling compliance and denying reconsider ation were an abuse of discret ion, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. In light of this disposition, Ap pellants are not entitled to the award of costs they re quest. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).

Entered for the Court

Carolyn B. McHugh Circuit Judge

2 “Reply to Response. Any reply to a response must be filed wit hin 7 days after service of the response. A reply must not present matter s that do not relate to the response.” Aplt. Opening B r. at 3 (internal quotation mark s omitted).