Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04682/USCOURTS-ca3-14-04682-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyshaun St. Vallier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

ALD-199 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-4682

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TYSHAUN ST. VALLIER,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.N.J. Crim. No. 2-07-cr-00613-002)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal as Untimely or Summary

Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

May 14, 2015

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 11, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

*This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-4682 Document: 003111988648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
2

Tyshaun St. Vallier, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion for an 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District 

Court.

In 2009, St. Vallier was convicted of importing 500 grams or more of cocaine into 

the United States and conspiracy to import 500 grams or more of cocaine. We affirmed 

the judgment of conviction and remanded for resentencing due to a procedural error by 

the District Court. United States v. St. Vallier, 404 F. App’x 651, 665 (3d Cir. 2010) 

(non-precedential). On remand, St. Vallier was sentenced to 204 months in prison. We 

affirmed. United States v. St. Vallier, 488 F. App’x 628, 634 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential).

St. Vallier filed motions in District Court for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 33, and for discovery. The District Court denied the motions on 

October 31, 2013. On February 18, 2014, St. Vallier filed a motion to reopen the time to 

file a notice of appeal. He asserted that he did not timely receive notice of the District 

Court’s decision. St. Vallier then moved to amend his motion in order to state that he 

sought to reopen to the time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

4(a)(6). The Government opposed reopening the time to appeal.

The District Court denied St. Vallier’s motions. The District Court explained that 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) applies to St. Vallier’s case and that under that 

Case: 14-4682 Document: 003111988648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
3

rule it lacked authority to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. This appeal 

followed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s interpretation of the appellate rule, and we review the denial of 

the requested extension for abuse of discretion. See Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. 

Larson, 827 F.2d 916, 918 (3d Cir. 1987).1

The District Court did not err in denying St. Vallier’s motions. As recognized by 

the District Court, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b), applicable to appeals in 

criminal cases, governs St. Vallier’s appeal of the denial of his Rule 33 and discovery 

motions. Under Rule 4(b)(1)(A), St. Vallier had 14 days, or until November 14, 2013, to 

appeal the District Court’s October 31, 2013 order. 

The District Court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal, but it may only 

do so for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the 14-day period, here 

December 14, 2013. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). St. Vallier’s motion, filed on February 18, 

2014, was too late. United States v. Vastola, 899 F.2d 211, 222 (3d Cir.), vacated on 

other grounds, 497 U.S. 1001 (1990). 

 

1The parties were initially notified that this appeal was subject to possible dismissal 

because the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely filed. The Government has advised 

us that it does not seek dismissal on this basis. We will not dismiss the appeal as 

untimely. The time requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) are not 

jurisdictional and the Government has waived any contention that this appeal is untimely. 

See Virgin Islands v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 327-29 (3d Cir. 2010).

Case: 14-4682 Document: 003111988648 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2015
4

St. Vallier asserted in District Court that he did not receive notice of the District 

Court’s order until January 31, 2014. For substantially the reasons stated by the District 

Court, St. Vallier has not shown that the time to file his notice of appeal was tolled, 

thereby extending the time the District Court could afford him an extension of time. 

Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 14-4682 Document: 003111988648 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/11/2015