2008 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 10-31-2008 

# B ruce Rob e r t s v

. U SA 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 . 08-3562

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_2008

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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " B r uc e Ro be r ts v

. U SA" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 289. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/289A L D - 1 1 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- 3562 BR U CE J A M ES R O BE RT S, A p p e llan t, v . UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

__________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 05045) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den

____________________________________ 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

O ct ober17, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober31, 2008)

OP I NI ON

P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antB ruce Rober t s , a fe der al pr i s oner , w as found gui l tyfol l ow i ng a j uryt r i al in U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yo f

c o n sp irin g to c o m m it2

b a n k ro b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 a n d b a n k ro b b e ry in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2113( a) . O n February12, 1996, he w as s ent ence d as a ca r eeroffe ndert o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof 210 m onths and fi ned $5, 000. 00. W e af fi r m ed the j udgm enton O ct ober 9 , 1 9 9 6 in U n it ed S tat es v . R o b erts, N o . 9 6 -51 4 2 , an d the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt th e re a f ter d e n ied c e rtio ra ri. O n F e b ru a ry2 8 , 1 9 9 8 , R o b e rts f iled a m o tio n to v a c a te s e n te n c e p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 , w h ic h th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt d e n ie d o n th e m e ri ts . O n M ar ch 10, 1999, w e deni ed R obert s ’ r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n U ni t ed St at es v. R obert s , N o. 98- 6388. O n A ugus t27, 2004, R obert s fi l ed a mot i on s eeki ng m odi fi cat i on of hi s s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3582( c) ( 2) on t he bas i s of the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tC l erk’ s O ffi ce ope ned the i ns t ant c iv il c a s e , a n d d o c k e te d th is m o tio n a s a m o tio n to v a c a te s e n te n c e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255. O n Sept ember7, 2007, R obert s fi l ed a mot i on pur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . Pr o. 52( b) , i n w hi ch he c ont ended thathe w as i ndi gentand “the del egat i on of an i ns t al l m ent pl an t o the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ” t o col l ecthi s fi ne w as i m pr oper . See gene r al l yU ni t ed S t a t e s v . Co r l e y , 5 0 0 F . 3 d 2 1 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( r e s t i tu t i o n o r d e rwh i c h d e l e g a t e s t o BO P how defe ndantw i l l payi m pr oper l ydel egat es j udi ci al funct i on) . O n D ece m ber17, 2007, R obert s fi l ed a s uppl ementi n w hi ch he a s ked forr el i ef unde rA m endment709 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . See U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2. H e cl ai m ed thatthe s ent enci ng courti m pr oper l ycount ed a pa r ol e vi ol at i on as a pr i ors ent ence i n cal cul at i ng3

hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e. O n D ece m ber31, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed al l thr ee r eques t s forr el i ef f or l ack of j ur i s di ct i on, r eas oni ng thattheyw er e unauthor i zed s econd ors ucce s s i ve s ect i on 2255 m ot i ons . T he courtnot ed furtherthatB l akel yand U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), h a d n o t b e e n m a d e re tro a c tiv e to c a se s o n c o llate ra l re v iew . R o b e rts d id notfi l e a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l of thi s deci s i on. O n J ul y21, 2008, R obert s fi l ed a “ M ot i on Seeki ng T o H ave The C our tC orr ect T h is D e f e n d a n t’s F ili n g (s) P u rsu a n t to R u le 1 0 (e ).” R o b e rts a sk e d th e D istric t C o u rt to con strue a June 2 00 8 m oti on he h ad fil ed in hi s cr i m i nal cas e, U nit ed S t at es v. R ob ert s, D . C . C r i m . N o. 95- cr - 00225, as a mot i on forperm i s s i on t o appea l the D ece m ber31, 2007 o rd e r. In a n o rd e r e n ter e d o n A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied p e rm iss io n to appea l , r eas oni ng thatR obert s had pr evi ous l ybeen gr ant ed perm i s s i on t o fi l e an appeal outof t i m e i n hi s cr i m i nal cas e forr evi ew of the or derhe had s peci fi ed i n the J une 2008 m o tio n , an d h e h a d g iv e n n o re a so n w h a tev e r f o r w h yh e sh o u ld b e g ra n ted p e rm iss io n to appea l the D ece m ber31, 2007 or deri n hi s ci vi l cas e. R obert s fi l ed a not i ce of appea l on A ugus t18, 2008, s eeki ng t o appea l the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s A u g u st 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 d e c isio n . O u r C ler k n o tifie d h im th a t h is a p p e a l w a s s u b jec t to su m m a ryd isp o sitio n u n d e r T h ird C ir. L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 a n d in v ited h im to s ubm i tar gum enti n w r i t i ng, an i nvi t at i on he has decl i ned. W e w i l l sum m ari l yaffirm the o rderof the D i stri ctC ou rtden y i ng R ob ert s’4

“ M o tio n S e e k in g T o H a v e T h e C o u rt C o rre c t T h is D e f e n d a n t’s F ili n g (s) P u rsu a n t to R u le 1 0 (e), ” w h ich w as in ef fe ct a req u est fo r an ex tens ion o f ti m e to a p p ea l. U n d er T h ir d C irc u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 , w e m a ysu m m a rilyd isp o se o f a n a p p e a l w h e n it cle a rly appea r s thatno s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed bythe appe al . W e have j ur i s di ct i on u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e D istric t C o u rt' s d e n ial o f a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e to a p p e a l is rev iew ed fo r an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee R am seu r v. B ey er, 92 1 F . 2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). R obert s had 60 day s , orunt i l February29, 2008, i n w hi ch t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l f ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 o rd e r. F e d . R . A p p . P ro . 4 (a )( 1 )( B ). A D i s tr i ctC our tm ayext end the t i m e forappea l i ng upon a s how i ng of exc us abl e negl ector g o o d c a u se , F e d . R . A p p . P ro . 4 (a )(5 )(A )(ii) (c iv il); R u le 4 (b )(4 ) (c rim in a l). E x c u sa b le n e g l e c ti s s h o wn wh e r e th e p a r tys e e k i n g a n e x t e n s i o n d e mo n s tr a t e s g o o d f a i th a n d s o me r eas onabl e bas i s fornotcompl y i ng w i th the t i m e l i m i ts peci fi ed i n the rul es . See P etruc ell i v. B o h ri n g er & R atzing er, 46 F . 3 d 1 2 9 8 , 1 3 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). In a n o rde r en tered o n A p ri l 15 , 2 0 0 8 in h is cri m inal ca se, th e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed a mandamus pet i t i on R obert s had fi l ed. O n J une 18, 2008 R obert s fi l ed a mot i on i n hi s cr i m i nal cas e, s eeki ng perm i s s i on t o appea l the A pr i l 15 or der . J us tas the D i s t r i ct C our tconcl uded, he made no r efe r ence w hat everi n thi s m ot i on of anyi nt ent i on t o appea lIn th e m o tio n , R o b e rts s tate d : “N o w C o m e s, B ru c e R o b e rts, (D e f e n d a n t) O n th is 1 2 th 1 d a yo f Ju n e , 2 0 0 8 , w ill re sp e c tf u llym o v e b e f

o re th is h o n o ra b le c o u rt w ith in a tim e ly f a s h io n f ilin g th is N o tic e o f

A p p e a l f

ro m th is c o u rt ’s O rd e r d a te d A p ri l 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 . D efe ndantr eques tthatthi s courtt ake j udi ci al not i ce thatthe def endantdi d notr ece i ve a copyof thi s O r deras of thi s dat e, and j us tr ece i ved a c opy. . . on J une 11, 2008. ” See M o t i o n S e e k i n g P e r mi s s i o n To F i l e No t i c e o f Ap p e a l , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ro b e r t s , D. C. C r i m . N o. 95- cr - 00225- 2, D ocketE ntryN o. 8. 5 the D ecem ber 31, 2007 order ent ered i n h i s ci vil case. H e cert ai nlycou l d h ave d on e so 1 i ns ofaras the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 15 or ders peci fi cal l yr efe r ence d the D ece m ber31, 2007 or derdi s pos i ng of hi s s ect i on 3582( c) ( 2) and R ul e 52( b) m ot i ons . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th u s d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g R o b e rts a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to a p p e a l. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt den y i ng the “M oti on S eeking T o H ave T he C ou rtC orr ectT his D efen dan t ’s F i l i ng (s ) P u rs u a n t to R u le 1 0 (e ).”