The Ho norable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2984

___________ Ronald B. Paul, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Farmland Industries, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 1998 Filed: April 9, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ro naldB. Paul brought an unsuccessful employment action against Farmlan d Industries, Inc. (Farmland). Several months after this court affirmed the judgment, see Paul v. Fa rmland Indus. Inc. , 37 F.3d 1274, 1275 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 51 4 U.S. 101 7 (1995), Farmland filed a supplemental bill of costs under Federal Rule o f Appellate Procedure 39(e) for court reporter fees incurred in obtaining a transcript for the appeal. The district court awarded these costs, rejecting Paul & s argument that 1 Farmland & s request was untimely under Rule 39(d). Paul appeals, and we affirm.-2-

Rule 39( a) allows costs to be taxed against the appellant if the judgment i s affirmed. Subdivision (c) allows the court of appeals to fix by local rule the maximum rate for “the cost of printing or otherwise producing necessary copies of briefs , appendices, and copies of records.” Subdivision (d) provides in part, “A party wh o desires such costs to be taxed shall state them in an itemized and verified bill of costs” filed with the clerk “within 14 days after the entry of ju dgment.” Subdivision (e) states in part, “Costs incurred in the preparation and transmission of th e record, [and] the cost of the reporter & s transcript, if necessary for the determination of the appeal, . . . shall be taxed in the district court as costs of the appeal i n favor of the party entitled to costs under this rule.”
We b elieve the district court correctly joined other courts in finding the phrase “such costs” in subdivision (d) refers to the costs listed in subdivision (c). Se e McKelvy v. Metal Container Corp. , 125 F.R.D. 179, 183 (M.D. F la. 1989) (Rule 39(d) gover ns procedure by which costs are requested from court of appeals; reference t o “such costs” implies those parts of rule prece ding subdivision (d)); see also McDonald v. McCarthy , 966 F.2d 112, 114-15 (3d Cir. 19 92) (stating in dictum that reading Rule 39 in its entirety reve als time limits in Rule 39(d) apply to costs of briefs, appendices, and copies of records allowable under Rule 39(c), and that Rule 39(d) & s time limi t should no t be read into Rule 39(e)); Sudouest Import Sales Corp. v. Union Carbid e Corp. , 102 F.R. D. 264, 264-65 (D. P.R. 1984) (stating in dictum that Rule 39(e) says nothing a bout time limit). We also believe the district court correctly reasoned that subdivisions (c) and (e) refer to different types of costs that are to be requested i n different courts. See Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Gay Cottons , 419 F.2d 372, 373 (9th Cir. 1969) (cost of reporter & s tran script for appeal is taxable in district court); 16A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3 985.1, at 672-73 (2d ed. 1996) (costs listed in Rule 39(e) are taxable only in th e dis trict court and “prevailing party should make a separate application to the distric t court after the mandate has been received from the court of appeals”). Furthermore,-3-

we construe subdivision (e) & s language “costs under this rule” to refer to subdivision (a) & s provisions as to whom costs are allowed. For these reasons we agree with the district court that the fourteen-day time limit of subdivisi on (d) does not apply to costs taxed in the district court under subdivision (e ), and we see no abuse of discretion in the district court & s determination that th e timing of Farmland & s request was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.