Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-04-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Eric King
Case Number: 20-1234
Judge: Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Denver, CO - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with
filing a motion with the district court seeking a hearing and amendment of his detention order.
Eric King is detained pending trial on a criminal charge. He filed a motion
with the district court seeking a hearing and amendment of his detention order. The
district court denied the motion in April 2020. King then had fourteen days to appeal
the detention order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). That deadline came and went
without him filing a notice of appeal. Several weeks later, he unsuccessfully filed a
motion asking the district court to reconsider its detention order. Then he filed a
notice of appeal, declaring his intent to appeal the reconsideration order. His
memorandum brief, however, challenges only the April 2020 detention order. His
appeal of that order is untimely. See id.
Because Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is a claim-processing rule, King’s failure to file a
timely notice of appeal does not affect our jurisdiction. See United States v.
Garduño, 506 F.3d 1287, 1290–91 (10th Cir. 2007). Although Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is not
jurisdictional, it is inflexible, assuring relief to a party who properly raises it.
Garduño, 506 F.3d at 1291.
Outcome: The government properly invoked the rule, so we must dismiss this appeal as untimely.
The appeal is dismissed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: