Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06179/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06179-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roderick Piggee
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F I .L .l:.J D 

Unii.ro Stat"!! Co~1r~ ~f Ap::::.h 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'J'n--1\i f', ··'..::·. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plai ntiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RODERICK PIGGEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT MAY 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerl: 

No. 91-6179 

(D.C. No . 90-229-W) 

( W. Dist . Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE , and SNEED,* Circuit Judges . 

Judgment was entered by the district court in this action on 

March 14, 1991 . Defendant did not file a notice of appeal. 

Rather, on March 25 the court received a letter from defendant's 

mother stating that her son wished to file a notice of appeal, had 

just become aware that his attorney had failed to do so, and 

wanted an extension of time so that he could obtain the necessary 

papers to file the notice. The court clerk docketed the letter as 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

*The Honorabl e Joseph T. Sneed, United States Circuit Judge, 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 91-6179 Document: 010110254339 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 1
a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. That 

motion was never acted on by the district court. 

On April 22, 1991, the district court amended the judgment to 

correct a clerical error. Although defendant was convicted of 

violating 21 u.s.c. S 846, the original judgment stated he had 

been convicted under 21 u.s.c. § 841(a)(l). Defendant filed a 

notice of appeal on April 26, within ten days of the amended 

judgment. However, the correction of a clerical error in a 

judgment does not start anew the time for filing a notice of 

appeal. Cf. White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal unless and 

until the district court decides the pending motion for extension 

of time and determines that there is excusable neglect for 

defendant's failure to timely file a notice of appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-6179 Document: 010110254339 Date Filed: 05/29/1992 Page: 2