2010 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 8-26-2010 

# U SA v . Rudolph Hubb ard 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 . 09-1346

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_2010

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 2010 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 " U SA v . R udo lp h Hub b ar d " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 707. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/707NOT 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. 09- 1346

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RU DOL P H HUB BA RD ,

A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 3- 05- cr - 00067- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ur t i s V . G om ez

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber4, 2009 B E F O R E : M cK E E , C hief J ud ge, F U E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2010 )

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.A tthe t i m e of the eve ntgr oundi ng thi s cas e, H ubbar d w as i n cus t odybeca us e of 1 h is in d ic tm e n t f

o r i lle g a l e n tr yin to th e U n ite d S ta te s , a n d a f a ls e c la im o f

c itiz e n s h ip . U nited S tates v. H

ub ba rd , N o. 3: 06- cr - 00004 ( D . V i r gi n I s l ands fi l ed J an. 10, 2006) . T he M agi s tr at e J udge found H ubbar d i ncompet entt o s t and tr i al and di s m i s s ed the cha r ges on M a y2 5 , 2 0 0 9 . 2 Si nce thi s opi ni on i s w hol l yw i thoutpr ece dent i al val ue, w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe b e n e f it o f th e p a rt ie s w h o a re f

a m ilia r w ith th e f

a c tu a l a n d p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f th is c a s e . W e w ill d is m is s th e a p p e a l. R udol ph H ubbar d appea l s the j udgm entof M ay18, 2007, or der i ng a s peci al as s es s m entof $10. 00 and r es t i tut i on i n the amountof $181. 00 fol l ow i ng hi s ear l i erpl ea of nol o cont ender e to d estruc ti o n o f g o v ern m en t pro p erty . O n Ju n e 4 , 2 0 0 8 , H u b b ard 1 fi l ed foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e hi s not i ce of appea l . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the m o tio n o n F e b ru a ry 4 , 2 0 0 9 .

“ A n a p p e a l p e rm itt e d b ylaw a s o f rig h t f ro m a d istric t co u rt to a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls ma yb e t a k e n o n l yb yf

i l i n g a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l wi th th e d i s tr i c tc l e r k wi th i n th e t i me al l ow ed byR ul e 4. ” Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( a) ( 1) . “I n a cr i m i nal cas e, a def endant ’ s not i ce of appea l m us tbe fi l ed i n t he di s tr i ctcourtw i thi n 14 day s aft erthe l at erof: ( i ) the entryof eith er the jud g m en t or th e o rde r be ing ap p ea led; o r (i i) the f il ing o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s not i ce of appea l . ” Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) . R ul e 4 goes on t o s t at e the fol l ow i ng: U pon a fi ndi ng of exc us abl e negl ectorgood caus e, the d istric t co u rt m a y --b e f

o re o r a f ter th e tim e h a s e x p ire d , w ith orw i thoutm ot i on and not i ce- - ext end the t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appe al fora per i od nott o exce ed 30 day s fr om the ex p ir ati o n o f th e ti m e o therw ise p resc ri b ed b ythis R u le 4(b ).3

F e d .R .A p p .P . 4 (b )( 4 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antan ext ens i on of t i m e t o appea l i s r evi ew ed f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See R am s eurv. B eye r , 9 2 1 F .2 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 6 n .2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). B ec au se H u b b ard fil ed h is m o ti o n fo r ex tens ion o n e y ea r an d sixteen d ay s af ter th e c o u rt ent er ed j udgm enton t he docke t , ther e i s no ques t i on thatH ubbar d’ s m ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e w as fi l ed w el l aft erthe s t atut oryper i od fors uch mot i ons expi r ed. T he th re sh o ld q u e stio n , the re f o re , is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g H u b b a rd ’s m o tio n f o r a n e x te n s io n o f

tim e . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d id . W e h a v e c o n sis ten tlyg iv e n a stric t in terp re tatio n to th e f ili n g d e a d lin e sp e c if

ied in R u le 4 . S e e , e .g ., U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a r e lo c k

, 4 5 9 F .3 d 4 3 7 , 4 4 1 & n .7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). R ul e 4 pl ai nl ys t at es thata mot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l cannotbe gr ant ed af

t erthe thi r ty - daygr ace per i od has expi r ed. T he l anguage art i cul at i ng th is d e a d lin e is n o t p re c a to ry . A s a re su lt, it i s c lea r th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its dis cret i on i n g rant i ng a m oti on that w as not com pli ant w i th R ule 4. M oreove r, becau se th e D istric t C o u rt e x c e e d e d th e b o u n d a rie s o f its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to e x ten d th e f

ili n g d e a d lin e , H u b b a rd ’s n o tice o f a p p e a l is re n d e re d a n u lli ty . F o r th is re a s o n , w e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l.