United States v. Egli, No. 14-4140 (10th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL DAVID EGLI, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-4140 (D. Utah) (Nos. 2:14-CV-00699-TC and 2:04-CR-00577-TC-1) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. Daniel David Egli, a federal prisoner incarcerated in Louisiana, apparently was convicted of a federal offense in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. He filed in that court a motion for relief from his conviction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Relying on our opinion in United States v. Triplett, 166 F. App’x 362, * After examining the briefs and the 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)(2) and 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 365 66 (10th Cir. 2006), the district court denied the motion because Rule 60 does not apply to criminal cases. Mr. Egli appeals from the denial. We AFFIRM, because the district court was correct. If there were any colorable merit to Mr. Egli’s arguments, we might be tempted to recategorize his district-court pleading. But there is no temptation here. Appellant’s motion to “Certify Constitutional Question” is denied. Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee to the district court forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.