2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-1-2009 

# U SA v . James W i lli ams P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3438

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J ame s W i ll i am s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1415. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1415BL D- 1 6 0 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3438

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . J A M E S T . W I L L I A M S, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 95- cr - 00407) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l 16, 2009 B efore: M cK E E , F ISH E R and C H A G A R E S , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay1, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A p p ell an t Jam es T . W il li am s ap p ea ls pro se f rom an o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt d e n y i n g f

i v e s e p a r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n s . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.2

T hi s i s nott he fi r s tt i m e w e have out l i ned the fa ct s of W i l l i ams’ cas e, and for con si st ency ’s sake w e i nco rporat e his his t oryfrom ou r r ecent opini on i n In re W i l l i am s, 285 F. A pp’ x 865 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , as r efe r ence . T her e, w e hi ghl i ght ed thatbyor derdat ed A p ril 5 , 2 0 0 0 , the D istric t C o u rt g a v e W ill iam s “ six tyd a y s [ f ro m ] th e c o n c lu sio n o f

[ h is p en d ing stat e m u rde r] tri al, b u t i n n o ev en t l ater tha n A u g u st 1, 20 0 0 , ” to s u p p lem en t pro s e hi s couns el ed 28 U . S. C . § 2555 m ot i on. T hatm ot i on at t acke d hi s fede r al convi ct i ons for arm ed b ank robberyand rel at ed cri m es. W i l l i ams’ s t at e murde rt r i al di d notconcl ude unt i l A ugus t1, 2001, one y earaft er t he dea dl i ne, and he ha d y ett o s uppl ementhi s § 2255 m ot i on. O n A ugus t7, 2001, W i l l i ams m oved t o r eopen the t i m e t o s uppl ementhi s § 2255 m ot i on. O n A ugus t9, 2001, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on, fi ndi ng thatW i l l i ams’ fai l ur e t o abi de bythe t i m et abl e cons t i tut ed a w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o r ai s e s uppl ement al i s s ues pr o s e. T her eaf t er , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee ded on the couns el ed § 2255 mot i on as or i gi nal l yfi l ed, and deni ed r el i ef. W i l l i ams appe al ed, and w e dec l i ned t o i s s ue a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y . See U n it ed S tat es v . W il li am s, N o . 0 1 -41 2 5 (3d C ir . S ep t. 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 ). B et w een S eptem ber 13, 2004 , and June 2 , 20 08 , W i l l i am s fi l ed five pro se appl i cat i ons i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , al l of w hi ch s t emm ed fr om the A ugus t9, 2001 deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen the t i m e t o s uppl ementhi s § 2255 m ot i on. T he appl i cat i ons p u rp o rte d to se e k re lief p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C rim . P . R u le 3 6 a n d F e d . R . C iv . P . R u le 60( b) , as w el l as m andamus r el i ef. W i l l i ams’ over ar chi ng cont ent i on w as thi s : thatthe3

D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 5, 2000 or der , s ett i ng an out s i de dea dl i ne of A ugus t1, 2000, for s uppl ement i ng pr o s e hi s couns el ed § 2255 mot i on, i m perm i s s i bl ycontr adi ct ed an or al co m m u n icati o n fro m the D istri ct C o u rtthat g ran ted p erm issi o n to su p p lem en t bef o re expi r at i on of a s i xt y - dayper i od fol l ow i ng hi s s t at e murde rtr i al . B yor derdat ed J ul y9, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed al l fi ve appl i cat i ons . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. A s a pr el i m i narym at t er , al t hough hi s fi l i ngs on appea l and mot i ons befor e the D is tr ic t C o u rt la c k f

o c u s a n d c la ri ty, w e re a d th e m g e n e ro u s ly b e c a u s e W illia m s is p ro s e . T hats ai d, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthati ns ofaras W i l l i ams s oughtr el i ef pur s uant t o R ul e 60( b) , hi s m ot i on w as unt i m el y . T he ea r l i es tr el evantm ot i on w as fi l ed on S eptem ber 13, 2004 , m ore than t hree y ears aft er the ch al l eng ed o rderw as ent ered. T hu s, hi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as unt i m el y , no m att erw hi ch s ubs ect i on W i l l i ams s oughtr el i ef under . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( c) ( 1) ( “A m ot i on underR ul e 60( b) m us tbe made w i t hi n a r eas onabl e t i m e – and f orr eas ons ( 1) , ( 2) , and ( 3) no m or e than a y earaft erthe entr yof t he j udgm entoror derort he dat e of the pr ocee di ng”) ; M ool enaa rv. G ov’ tof V . I . , 822 F . 2 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) (tw o y ea rs no t a “rea so n ab le t im e” fo r 60 (b) p u rpo ses); M ar t i nez- M cB ean v. G ov’ tof V . I . , 562 F. 2d 908, 913 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( expr es s i ng

“ se rio u s d o u b ts” th a t tw o a n d o n e -h a lf y e a r d e lay i n f

ili n g R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n w o u ld co m p lyw ith “re aso n ab le t im e” req u ir em en t) . M or eover , i ns ofaras W i l l i ams cl ai m s thatthe A pr i l 5, 2000 or dercont ai ned c l e r i c a l e r r o r s , f

o rwh i c h r e me d yp u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. Cr i m. P . 3 6 wo u l d b e a p p l i c a b l e , weW e agr ee w i t h W i l l i ams thatone pos s i bl e, outof cont extr eadi ng of the A pr i l 5, 1 2 0 0 0 h e a rin g ’s tra n sc rip t is th a t h e w a s g iv e n u n til a f ter th e p e n d in g sta te m u rd e r tria l to fi l e hi s pr o s e s uppl ementt o t he § 2255 mot i on. R egar dl es s , i tw as w el l w i t hi n t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s po w er to inse rta m o re d ef init ive d ea d li n e in its w ri tt en o rde r. 4 agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hats uch r el i ef i s i nappr opr i at e i n t hi s cas e. See U ni t ed St at es v. G uevr emont , 829 F. 2d 423, 426 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( “a c l er i cal err orm us tnotbe one of j udgm entoreven mi s i dent i fi cat i on, butm er el yof r eci t at i on, of the s or tthata cl erk or a m a n u e n sis m ig h t co m m it, m e c h a n ica l in n a tu re ” ). W ill iam s o f f e rs n o e v id e n c e to count ert he pr es um pt i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ncl us i on of the A ugus t1, 2000 deadl i ne i n i t s A pr i l 5, 2000 or derw as anyt hi ng buti nt ent i onal . Fi nal l y , w e al s o concl ude thatt he 1 D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed as m ootW i l l i ams’ m andamus pe t i t i on and mot i ons for j ud i ci al no t i ce and t o am end and / or supplem ent hi s ear l i er fi l i ng s. T her e bei ng no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on pr es ent ed byW i l l i ams’ appea l fr om the deni al o f h is m o tio n s , w e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e c a s e . See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6.