T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of * th e c a s e , re s ju d ic a ta , a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. AR T UR O NAT E RA , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 2214 & 05- 2385 ( D . C . N os . C I V - 05- 166 B B / R L P and

CR- 0 0 - 1 4 2 4 BB) ( N ew M exi co)



### ORDER * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A r tur o N at er a, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , s eeks a ce r t i fi cat e of a p p e a la b ility (C O A ) t o c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f h is 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255 pet i t i on and the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of an e xt ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e an appea l . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291, 2253( c) , and con strui ng M r. N at era’ s pr o s e filin g s lib e ra lly, s ee Hai nes v. Ker ner , 40 4 U. S. 519, 520 ( 1972) , w e conc l ude j ur i s t s of r eas on w oul d notfi nd debat abl e the d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f M r. N a ter a ’s r e q u e st fo r re lief. W e th e re fo re d e n yh is a p p lic a tio n fo r a C O A .- 2-

I n A ugus t2002, M r . N at er a w as convi ct ed on fe der al drug char ges and s e n te n c e d to 3 6 0 m o n th s in p ri s o n . H is c o n v ic tio n w a s a ffir m e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. C obos , 92 Fed. A ppx. 650, 656 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) . M r . Na t e r a th e n s o u g h tr e l i e f u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 5 . He a ss e rte d v a rio u s c laim s o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l an d a lso c laim e d h is sen tenc e w as u n co n sti tuti o n al un d er Appr endiv. New Jers ey , 530 U . S. 466 (20 0 0 ). T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied M r. N atera’s req u est fo r reli ef, an d M r. N atera a p p e a l e d . T h a ta p p e a l wa s d o c k e t e d a s a p p e a l n u mb e r0 5 - 2 2 1 4 , wh i c h we ther eaf t erdi s m i s s ed as unt i m el y . M r . N at er a fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, w h ich w e g ra n ted b yp a rtiallyre m a n d in g th e m a tter to th e d istric t co u rt to d eterm ine w h ethe r “a m o ti o n to ex tend ti m e to re sp o n d to the g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i on s houl d be cons trued as a mot i on t o ext end t i m e t o appea l and i s s uffi ci ent to g ran t an e x tens ion o f ti m e u n d er F ED . R. A PP . 4( a) ( 5) ( A ) . ” O r d. fi l ed A ug. 26, 2005. U pon r emand, the di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded M r . N at er a’ s m ot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o r epl yt o the governm ent ’ s r es pons e t o hi s § 2255 m ot i on sh o u ld b e c o n stru ed as a m o ti o n to ex tend ti m e to fil e a n ap p ea l, b u t th e c o u rt nonethel es s hel d thatthe mot i on s houl d be deni ed bec aus e M r . N at er a coul d s how n e ith e r th e re q u isite g o o d c a u se n o r e x c u sa b le n e g lec t. M r. N a ter a tim e ly appea l ed thatrul i ng, w hi ch w as docket ed as N o. 05- 2385. U nl es s w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n deny i ng M r . N at er a’ s m ot i on- 3-

fo r ex tens ion o f ti m e to fil e a n ap p ea l, w e h av e n o juri sd ict ion o v er M r. N atera’s a p p e a l o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . S e e B ro w de r v . D ir., D e p ’t o f C o rr . o

f Ill. , 43 4 U. S. 257, 264 ( 1978) ( hol di ng t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i s both m andat oryand j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ) . T h u s , we fi r s ta d d r e s s wh e th e rM r . Na t e r a i s e n t i t l e d t o a CO A re g a rd in g th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h is R u le 4 (a )( 5 )( A ) m o tio n . “[A ] tr i al court ’ s fi ndi ng as t o the pr es ence orabs ence of exc us abl e negl ect as thatt erm i n us ed i n F ED . R. A PP . P. 4 s houl d notbe overturned byus on appea l unl es s ther e has been a cl earabus e of di s cr et i on. ” G ooch v. Skel l y O i lC o. , 493 F. 2d 366, 368 ( 10th C i r . 1974) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I n det erm i ni ng t hat M r . N at er a s how ed nei thergood caus e norexcus abl e negl ecti n hi s m ot i on for ex tens ion o f ti m e, th e d istri ct co u rtfo u n d the fo ll o w ing all eg ati o n s o f M r. N atera i ns uffi ci ent . I ni t i al l y , M r . N at er a as s ert ed thatthe governm ent ’ s r es pons e w as “q u it e len g thyan d co m p lex.” In ac tuality , the g o v ern m en t fi led n o resp o n se. M r. N at era then cl ai m ed thathe m i st aken l yequ at ed the di sm i ssal order t o a respon se b yth e g o v e rn m e n t. O n appea l , M r . N at er a attr i but es the err ori n i ncorr ect l ycons trui ng the di s m i s s al or dert o hi s i nm at e l egal couns el , w ho he al l eges fol l ow ed a “ cookbook s tyle c h e c k lis t” in d e te rm in in g w h a t p le a d in g s w o u ld b e file d a n d w h e n . A ccor di ng t o M r . N at er a, the j ai l hous e l aw y erbel i eved thataft erthe § 2255 m ot i on w as fi l ed, M r . N at er a w oul d then r ece i ve a r es pons e t o the mot i on fr om th e g o v e rn m e n t r a th e r t h a n a d is m is s a l f ro m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .- 4-

T h e d e ter m in a tio n o f

w h e th e r a fa ilu re to m e e t a d e a d lin e is “ e x c u sa b le” is atbo t t om an eq uit able one, t aking i nto accou nt al l of the ci rcum st ances, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) the dange rof pr ej udi ce t o the otherparty ; ( 2) the l ength of the del ayand i t s pot ent i al i m pacton j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs ; ( 3) the r eas on forthe del ay , i ncl udi ng w hetheri tw as w i thi n the r eas onabl e contr ol of the movant ; and (4 ) w h e th e r t h e m o v a n t a c te d in g o o d fa ith . See Bis hop v. C ors ent i no , 371 F. 3d 1203, 1206- 07 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . A s M r . N at er a not es , ther e i s l i t t l e dange rof p rejud ice to the g o v ern m en t as i t has fil ed n o p lead ing s in reg ard to either o f M r. N at er a’ s appea l s . T he l ength of the del ayi n fi l i ng an appe al of the deni al of the § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n w a s fif

tee n d a y s, a n d th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e d e lay w a s d u e to b a d fa ith . H o w e v e r, faulti n the del ayrem ai ns a veryi m po rt ant fact or- perhap s the m ost i m por t ants i ngl e fa ct or - i n det erm i ni ng w hethernegl ecti s excus abl e. C i t y of C hanut e [ v. Wi l l i am s Nat ur alG as C o. ] , 31 F. 3d [1041, 1046 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ]; s ee G r aphi c C om m uni cat i ons Int 'lUni on v. Q uebec orP r i nt i ng P r ovi dence , Inc. , 270 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) (W e h av e o b serv ed that the fo u r P i oneerfac t or s do notcarryequal w ei gh t ; the ex cuse given fo r the lat e fi l i ng m usthav e t he g reat est im p o rt .) U. S. v. Torr es , 3 7 2 F . 3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (qu o tat ion s m ark s o m itted). H er e, the gi ven r eas on forthe del ayw as M r . N at er a’ s fai l ur e t o cons true the d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis m i ssal as a di sm i ssal . E xp ect i ng a res po nse bri ef t o h i s § 2255 m ot i on fr om the governm ent , he as s um ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al w as thatr es pons e br i ef. M r . N at er a makes no cl ai m thathe di d nothave not i ce of the- 5-

d ism iss a l n o r th a t h e c o u ld n o t re a d th e d ism iss a l o n c e h e re c e iv e d it.

“‘ [I ] nadvert ence , i gnor ance of the rul es , orm i s t akes cons trui ng the rul es do not us ual l ycons t i tut e “e xcus abl e” ne gl ect . ’ ” Torr es , 372 F. 3d at1163 ( quot i ng P i oneer , 5 0 7 U .S . at 3 9 2 ); s ee als o i d. ( “The excus abl e negl ects t andar d can ne ver b e m e t b ya sh o w in g o f in a b ili tyo r re f

u sa l to re a d a n d c o m p re h e n d th e p lain l ang uag e of the fed eral rul es. ”) ( i nternal quotat i on s and cit at i on s om i t t ed). T hu s, M r. N a te ra ’s re a s o n fo r t h e d e la yd o e s n o t c o n s titu te e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. A C O A s houl d i s s ue onl yw her e “the appl i canthas m ade a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 2) . “A p e tit io n e r sa tisfies th is s tan d a rd b yd e m o n stra tin g th a t ju rists o f re a so n c o u ld di s agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r es ol ut i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orthat j ur i s t s coul d concl ude the i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e ade quat e t o des erve enc our agement t o pr ocee d fur ther . ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 327 ( 2003) . B as ed on o u r rev iew o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s ruli n g , the re co rd o n ap p ea l and M r. N atera’s su b m iss io n s to o u r c o u rt, w e d o n o t th in k ju rists o f re a so n w o u ld fin d d e b a tab le th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f M r. N a ter a ’s p e tit io n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t h is not i ce of

appea l w as nott i m el y . W e ther efor e DE NY h i s a p p l i c a t i o n fo ra CO A and D I SM I SS his app eal s. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge