T he Cl er k of C our t i s di r ect ed t o a m end t he o ff i ci al ca pt i on t o co nf

or m t o t he l i s t i ng of

t he p ar t i es s t at ed * abo ve. 1 0 7

- 0 4 8 1

- p r (L) Pap pa s v . U SA UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMARY ORDER
Ruli ng s by su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ff ect . Ci ta ti onto a su m m ar y o r de r filed on or a ft e r J a nu a ry 1, 2007, is permitt ed and is govern ed by Feder al Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s cou rt’s Local Rule 32.1.1 . When citing a sum mary or der in a d ocument fil ed wi th thi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c it e ei th er

th e F ed er al

App en dix o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “sum mary or der”) . A party citin g a summar y order must serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel. Ata st at edte r mof

th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t th e D an ie l P at ric k Mo yn ih anUn it edSt at es Co ur th ou se, 500 P ear l S tr eet , i n t he Cit

y o f N ew York, on th e twenty-f

ifth d ay of January two th ousand and t en. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES , R OS EMARY S. P OO L ER , G ERA R D E. L

YN CH , Circuit Jud ges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x M AR K O S P AP PA S , Peti

ti o ne r- Appella nt , G OR DON L

A U R IA , Petitioner -Appellan t-Cross-Appellee, v. No s . 07 -0 481 -p r (L ), 07- 0513(C), 07-0514 (XAP) U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA

Appellee-C ross-Appella nt. *

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
FOR P ETIT IONERS-APP ELLANTS: Joh n T. W a lkle y, Law O ffi ce s of Jo hnT. Walk ley, M on r oe CT , fo r G o rdo n Laur ia. M ar ko s Papp as , pro se, P ollo ck, LA , for Markos Papp as .L au ri a’ s app ea l i n 0 7-0 51 3-p r w as d i sm i ssed for fai l u re to pa y the d oc ke t i ng fee or m ov e fo r in for m a p a u p eris 1 (“ IF P ” ) sta tu s, a n d a m a n d a te issu e d th e r e a ft e r . S ee 07 -05 13 -pr, en t ry a t Ju l y 2 5, 20 08
. N otw i t hstand i ng t ha t ord er, couns el f or Lauri a c ont i nued t o f i l e docum ent s , of

t en wi t h l eav e of

t hi s C our t , i n Pappa s ’ s con s ol i dat ed app eal , N o. 07- 0481- pr . Accor di ng l y, we w i l l con s t r ue t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s A pr i l 5, 2007 or der gr ant i ng Lauri a a cer t i f i cat e of a p p e a la b ility to in c lu d e a g r a n t o f I F P sta tu s a n d w e re c a ll th e m a n d a te a n d re in sta te th e a p p e a l. S ee Fed. R
. A pp. P. 2. 2 FOR APP ELL EES-CROSS-APP ELLANTS: Dav idT . H uang, A s s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to rney (N or a R. D ann ehy , Act

ing Unit ed St ate s At to rney , an d Willi am J . N ar di ni , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to rney , on the brief ), Di stri ctof C on ne ctic ut, Ha rtfo rd, C T. Appea l from an order of

the United States District Court f or the District of Connecticut (P et er C. D or s ey, Judge

). UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJU DG ED , AN D D ECR EED th at the o r der

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s AF F IRME D exce pt to th e ext ent th at i t w as r end er ed m oo t b y the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s Apr

il 5 , 20 07 o r der

. Pe ti ti on er s -app ell ant s M ar ko s Papp as (“ Papp as ”) andGo r do n L aur ia ( “L aur ia”) app eal 1 from an order

of the District Court entered on Decembe r 13, 2006, in whi ch the District Court: (1) denied Pappa s’s 28 U.S.C . § 2255 motion in its entirety; (2) denied La uria’s § 2255 motion as to all bu t o ne c lai m; and(3 ) gr ant ed L aur ia’ s § 22 55 m ot

io n i ns of ar as he c lai medth at h e hadbee n deniedth e ef

fe ct ive as s is tan ce o f app ell ate cou ns el d ue t o co un s el’ s failu r e t o ar gue th at the 4 20- month term of

imprisonm ent of Lauria’s s entence violated Apprend i v. New J ersey, 53 0 U. S. 4 66 (2 000). T he g ov ernm ent

cr os s -app eale d f

r omth e De cem ber

13, 200 6 o r der . O n Ap r

il 5 , 20 07, af

te r all pa rties had filed notices of appeal, the Distr ict Court granted the gove rnment’s m otion for r eco ns id er ati onof

it s Dec emb er

13, 200 6 o r der

in s of ar as it gr ant ed r eli ef

onon e of

La ur ia’ s clai ms . W e a ssum e t he pa rti es’ fa mi li a rity wit h th e r em ain in g f a ct ua l a nd pro ce du ra l i ssue s. In reviewing a distr

ict court’s denial of relief under § 2255, we revie w findings of fact for clea r err or andcon clu s io ns of

law de novo

. See Ventry v

. United Sta tes

, 539 F.3d 102, 11 0 (2d Cir. 2008). As an i ni ti al m att er , the g ov ernm ent ’s cr os s -app eal i s di s mi s s ed as mo ot . T he g ov ernm ent ’s appea l is fr om the portion of the Dece mber 13, 2006 order granting Lauria § 2 255 relief conc erning his s entencing

clai m. After the government filed its notice of appea l, howev er, the Distr ict Court amende d the Dece mber 13, 2006 order to let Lauria’s original sentence of 420 months stand, th er eby mo ot ing the g ov ernm ent ’s app eal. Additionally, to the extent that Lauria c halle nges the Distr ict Court’s April 5, 2007 order, the3

appea l is dismis sed for

lackof appella te jurisdiction. Where aparty files a motion for r eco ns id er ati onaf

te r th e en tr y of an ap peal abl e f

in al o r der , as all

par ti es di d h er e, any par ty th at s eeks to app eal the dis po s it io n o f the r eco ns id er ati onmo ti on , o r a f in al o r der alt er ed o r ame nd ed up ons ucha mo ti on , m us t f ile a no ti ce o f app eal af

te r th e en tr y of th e new or der

. See Fed. R. A pp. P. 4(a)( 4) (B)( ii) (“ A par ty

in te nding t o ch all eng e an o r der di s po s ing of

any m ot io n l is te d i n Rule 4(a)(4)(A), or a judgment’s alteration or amendment upon such a motion, must file a notice of appea l, or an amende d notice of appe al . . . within the time prescribed by this Rule mea sur ed from th e en tr y of th e or der di s po s ing of

th e las t s uchr emaining m ot io n. ”) ; Sorensen v. City of New York , 41 3 F. 3d292 , 29 6 (

2dCir . 20 05) (“ I f the j udgm ent is alt er ed upo n dis po s it

io n o f apo s ttr

ial mo ti on. . . and if a p arty wishes to

app eal from the di

sposition of the motion , t he pa rty mu st a me nd the no ti ce to so indica te.” (quoting Fed. R . App. P. 4(a)(4) 1993 Advisory Committee Notes)). Here, Lauria did not file a n ot ice o f app eal f

r omth e Ap r

il 5 , 20 07 o r der , n or

di d h e s eek t o am endhi s pr evi ou s ly- filed no ti ce o f app eal, whi ch ad dr es s ed o nly the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s Dec emb er

13, 200 6 o r der . Acc or di ngl y, we la ck appe llate jurisdiction to consider Lauria’s arguments challengi ng the April 5, 200 7 order. With respect to Pappas’s claims and the remainde r of L auria’s claims, we affirm the order of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t, ent er ed D ecem ber 13, 200 6, s ub s tan ti ally f

or th e r eas on s s tat ed i n the D is tr ict Cou r t’ s th or ough a ndcar ef ul rul ing of th at d ate . La uria v. United States, N os . 96 cr 185 , 01 cv1 893 , 01c v18 94, 200 6 WL

370 428 2 (

D. Con n. Dec . 13 , 20 06)
.

CONCLUSI ON We hav e co ns id er ed all o f p et it io ner s ’ ar gum ent s andfi ndth em t o b e witho ut mer it
. Petitioner Lauria’s appeal is dismiss ed for lack of appe llate jurisdiction insofar as it r elate s to the Distr ict Court’s April 5, 2007 order. With respect to the remaining c laims of both petitioners , the De ce mb er13 , 2 00 6 o rde r of t he Di stri ctC ou rt i s AFFIRMED exce pt to th e ext ent

th at i t w as rendered moot by the Distr ict Court’s April 5, 2007 order.

FOR THE C OU R

T, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court