In the Matter of the Application of Craig Tweedy Forreinstatement to the Federal Bar of the Northerndistrict of Oklahoma, Appellant, 116 F.3d 489 (10th Cir. 1997)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^* 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Craig Tweedy, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's denial of his application for reinstatement as a member of the bar of the Northern District of Oklahoma. He contends that his original suspension resulted from a denial of due process and a fraud upon the court. We affirm.

In January 1993, the judges of the Northern District of Oklahoma entered an order which suspended Tweedy from practice and from the district court rolls for a period of three years.¹  Tweedy did not appeal that order. When the three years expired, Tweedy sought reinstatement. The primary basis for his request was that he had, in fact, done nothing to deserve the suspension. On appeal, he continues to argue the merits of the original suspension.

The present appeal is, in fact, an attack on the January 1993 order, which we lack jurisdiction to review. In re Cascade Oil Co., 848 F.2d 1062, 1063 (10th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (noting that Fed. R. App. P. 4 time limits for filing notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional and citing Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)). Moreover, to the extent that this appeal might be addressed to the order denying Tweedy's recent application for reinstatement, res judicata bars any claim that the original grounds justifying disbarment were insufficient.²  Driver Music Co. v. Commercial Union Ins., 94 F.3d 1428, 1435 (10th Cir1996).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.