Opinion ID: 172065
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What is the Nature of the Purported Error?

Text: The Antrobuses argue that the district court erred in denying them a new hearing based on newly discovered evidence. But their petition nowhere tells us what legal standard the district court, or we, should apply to their request for a new hearing, or what the source of that standard is. Did the district court fail to apply or misapply a particular statute, a rule, or a case? What legal standard should have governed the disposition of their motion? The petition does not say, and the omission is fatal. To be sure, one can imagine many potential candidates. Before the district court, petitioners suggested several bases for its motion, including Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, the district court's inherent authority, and the CVRA's command that victims be `treated with fairness.' Dist. Ct. Doc. 147, at 7-8; id. Doc. 152 at 2-4 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8)). Before us, however, petitioners do not tell us which among these, if any, they think applies. They simply seek reversal, silent with respect to what legal rubric they think compels that result. In fact, they claim we need not even concern ourselves with the issue. Because [t]he district court assumed that the Antrobuses were legally entitled to pursue a new hearing if they could provide new evidence ... the issue before this Court is simply whether the Antrobuses have new evidence or not. Petition at 23-24 (emphasis added). Under our rules, a petitioner or appellant may not leave us guessing about the nature of the district court's error. It is insufficient merely to state in one's brief that one is appealing an adverse ruling below without advancing reasoned argument as to the grounds for the appeal. Am. Airlines v. Christensen, 967 F.2d 410, 415 n. 8 (10th Cir.1992). A mandamus petition must state the issues presented by the application and the reasons why the writ should issue. Fed. R.App. P. 21(a)(2). Our rules on appeal are similar. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9) (brief must state the reasons for relief with citations to authorities). The Antrobuses have not met this basic requirement. Whenever a party asks us to declare that an error has occurred, we require a detailed explanation of how the district court erred. United States v. Apperson, 441 F.3d 1162, 1195 (10th Cir.2006). The Antrobuses do not identify for us the source of the district court's duty to grant them a new hearing, which disables us from evaluating the district court's decision. This is an adequate basis to deny their application for mandamus.