Opinion ID: 155212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excuse for Untimeliness

Text: 8 Ms. Woods seeks to excuse her late appeal on two bases. First, she claims the clerk failed to provide her with notice of the entry of judgment, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d), and contends this omission tolled the time for appeal until August 5, 1996, when she first learned of the entry. Rule 77(d) states that [l]ack of notice of the entry by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Where, as here, a tardy appellant has not sought relief from the district court under Rule 4(a), any lack of notice as to entry will not excuse her untimely appeal. See, e.g., Senjuro v. Murray, 943 F.2d 36, 37 (10th Cir.1991); Lathrop v. Oklahoma City Hous. Auth., 438 F.2d 914, 915 (10th Cir.1971). 9 Second, Ms. Woods submits an affidavit from counsel recounting specific inquiries about the entry of judgment directed to the district court which, until a computer search was finally conducted by the clerk on August 5, 1997, elicited negative responses. These undisputed facts go beyond mere nonfeasance under Rule 77(d), and implicate the unique circumstances doctrine under which a jurisdictionally defective appeal may be allowed in the interests of justice if affirmative actions or statements by the district court have induced detrimental reliance by an appellant resulting in the filing of an untimely notice of appeal. Senjuro, 943 F.2d at 37-38; see, e.g., Stauber v. Kieser, 810 F.2d 1, 1-2 (10th Cir.1982). As we cannot say counsel's reliance on the specific misinformation provided by the court clerk was unreasonable, we accept jurisdiction of this appeal and proceed to the merits. See generally Home & Family, Inc. v. England Resources Corp. (In re Home & Family, Inc.), 85 F.3d 478, 481 (10th Cir.1996) (noting [r]easonable reliance [is] the mainstay of the 'unique circumstances' doctrine).