This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 TERRY GAFFNEY, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 34,152 4 ROBIN HOOD WATER USERS 5 ASSOCIATION, INC., 6 Defendant-Appellee, 7 and 8 JACK R. SHIREY, SECRETARY 9 TREASURER/RECORDS CUSTODIAN, 10 PRESTON STEVENS, PRESIDENT, 11 FRED LINDT, VICE PRESIDENT, 12 BOB BOLTON, DIRECTOR, 13 ED ARMSTRONG, DIRECTOR, 14 JACK LEEAH, DIRECTOR, 15 Real Parties in Interest. 16 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY 17 Jerry H. Ritter Jr., District Judge 18 Terry Gaffney 19 High Rolls, NM 20 Pro Se Appellant 212 John D. Wheeler & Associates 1 Arslan S. Umarov 2 Alamogordo, NM 3 for Appellee 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION 5 GARCIA, Judge. 6 {1} Appellant, Terry Gaffney, appeals from the district court’s order granting 7 summary judgment in favor of Defendant. We issued a notice of proposed summary 8 disposition proposing to dismiss due to a late notice of appeal. Appellant has 9 responded with a timely memorandum in opposition. We have considered the 10 arguments made in the memorandum in op position as well as the district court’s 11 factual findings regarding the reason the no tice of appeal was not timely filed. We 12 remain unpersuaded that our initial proposedsummary disposition was incorrect, and 13 we therefore dismiss this appeal. 14 DISCUSSION 15 {2} Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. To properly invoke this 16 Court’s jurisdiction, a party must comply with the appellate rules governing the time 17 and place in which to file the notice of appeal. See Govich v. North Am. Sys., Inc ., 18 1991-NMSC-061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226, 814 P.2d 94; see also Trujillo v. Serrano , 19 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 14, 117 N.M. 273, 871 P.2d 369 (establishing that the timely 203 filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory precondition to our exercise of jurisdiction 1 to hear an appeal). Rule 12-201(A)(2) NMRArequires the appellant to file a notice 2 of appeal in the district court clerk’s office within thirty days of the district court’s 3 entry of its final judgment. Pro se litigants must comply with the rules and orders of 4 the court and will not be treated differently than litigants with counsel. See Bruce v. 5 Lester , 1999-NMCA-051, ¶ 4, 127 N.M. 301, 980 P.2d 84. 6 {3} In this case, the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of 7 Defendants was entered on August 26, 2014. [RP 104] Appellant therefore had thirty 8 days in which to file a notice of appeal in district court. See Rule 12-201(A)(2). Since 9 Appellant did not file a notice of appeal until September 26, 2014, the notice of appeal 10 is one day late. [RP 110] Only in excepti onal circumstances beyond the control of the 11 parties will we entertain an untimely appeal. 12 {4} In his memorandum in opposition, Appellant argues that exceptional 13 circumstances exist to excusethe late filing because he was called to the scene of an 14 emergency involving a broken gas line. [MIO 1] On receipt of the memorandum in 15 opposition, we remanded this case for the district court to rule on Defendants’ 16 outstanding motion to strike the notice of appeal and for factual findings regarding the 17 reason for the late notice of appeal. The di strict court’s factual findings indicate that 18 Appellant was on his way to file the notice of appeal on the day that it was due when 194 he decided to turn around just miles beforethe courthouse in order to help a friend 1 with a personal construction project. The district court determined that this decision 2 was not an exceptional or unusual circumst ance but merely a matter of convenience 3 to a friend. Appellant remainedoccupied with this project for the rest of the day, and 4 therefore did not file the notice of appeal un til the next day. We agree with the district 5 court’s determination that this doe s not constitute unusual or exceptional 6 circumstances that would justify excusing the late notice of appeal. See Trujillo , 7 1994-NMSC-024, ¶ 16 (holding that exceptional circumstances are those beyond the 8 control of the parties, such as delay caused by judicial error); see also In re Estate of 9 Newalla , 1992-NMCA-084, ¶ 21, 114 N.M. 290, 837 P.2d 1373 (stating that “[o]ne 10 such exceptional circumstance might be reasonable reliance on a precedent indicating 11 that the order not timely appealed wa s not a final, appealable order”); State v. 12 Upchurch , 2006-NMCA-076, ¶ 5, 139 N.M. 739, 137 P.3d 679 (“Because there is no 13 indication that unusual circumstances justify our discretion to entertain this untimely 14 appeal, we do not overlook this grave proce dural defect.”). As a result, we do not 15 disagree with the district court’s order striking Appellants notice of appeal or the 16 reasoning to support its decision. 17 {5} For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal. 18

{6} IT IS SO ORDERED. 195 ________________ ________________ 1 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 2

WE CONCUR: 3

_______________________________ 4 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 5

_______________________________ 6 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 7