United States of America v. Eric King

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ERIC KING,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 20-1234
(D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00257-WJM-1)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
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
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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
January 26, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 20-1234 Document: 010110470714 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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. The government properly invoked the rule, so we must
dismiss this appeal as untimely. See id. at 1292.
The appeal is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
Appellate Case: 20-1234 Document: 010110470714 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 2 --