United States v. Hogg

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 12 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-6139
(D.C. No. CR-91-52-R)
VICKIE JUNE HOGG, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Vickie June Hogg appeals from the district court’s order denying
her motion to reduce the sentence imposed pursuant to her conviction in 1991 for
various drug offenses. We first address whether defendant’s notice of appeal is
timely under Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The time
limits for filing a notice of appeal are mandatory and jurisdictional. United States
v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960). “[W]e have a duty to inquire into our
own jurisdiction.” McGeorge v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 871 F.2d 952, 953
(10th Cir. 1989).
The district court’s order denying relief was entered on March 26, 1996.
Defendant filed her pro se notice of appeal on April 15, 1996, six days after the
ten-day filing deadline established in Rule 4(b). On June 13, 1996, this court
issued a jurisdictional show cause order. Thereafter, defendant’s attorney filed a
request for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal with the district court,
which was granted on June 27, 1996. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over
this appeal unless the late filing, which occurred within the thirty-day permissible
extension period of Rule 4(b), was a result of excusable neglect.
By permitting courts to accept late filings due to excusable neglect,
“Congress plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where
appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or
carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party’s control.”
-2-
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388
(1993); see Stutson v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 600, 602 (1996) (noting that six
courts of appeals have held that Pioneer standard applies in Rule 4 cases). We
review the district court’s determination of excusable neglect for an abuse of
discretion. City of Chanute v. Williams Natural Gas Co., 31 F.3d 1041, 1045
(10th Cir. 1994).
Defendant explained that her notice of appeal was late because she had not
received notice of the court’s order denying her motion for relief. The district
court’s order extending the time to appeal found that defendant’s motion “is well
taken and should be granted,” June 27, 1996 order, indicating that defendant’s
failure to receive notice of the order was excusable neglect.
The district court record reflects that defendant’s motion to reduce her
sentence was filed pro se and that the government’s response was served on
defendant, but not on her attorney. The district court docket sheet does not reflect
that a copy of the order denying relief was sent to either defendant or her attorney
as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 49(c). Even though “[l]ack of notice of the entry
by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal,” the district court was permitted to
consider it. Id. Under the circumstances, we determine that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in granting the extension of time to file the notice of
appeal. Therefore, we have jurisdiction to consider the merits.
-3-
The district court denied the motion to reduce sentence because the
applicable statutes and sentencing guidelines did not lower defendant’s sentencing
range. The district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing
guidelines are reviewed de novo. United States v. Pappert, 104 F.3d 1559, 1567
(10th Cir. 1997). We have carefully reviewed the district court’s order, as well as
the district court record and the materials submitted by the parties, and we find no
reversible error. We affirm the district court’s March 26, 1996 order denying
sentence reduction for substantially the reasons stated in that order. The motion
to withdraw filed by defendant’s attorney is denied as moot.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-4-