United States v. King, No. 20-1234 (10th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 26, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ERIC KING, No. 20-1234 (D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00257-WJM-1) (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. 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 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.
