FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUG 15 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11439 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -000 11 -C R -2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C A S P E R F R A N K L I N B R O W N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 15, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n 2 0 0 2 , C a s p e rF r a n k lin B r o w n p le d g u ilty to p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to2

di stri bu t e 5 or m ore grams of cra ck, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). O ver thr e e y e a r s l a t e r , B r ow n f i l e d am ot i on t o f

i l e adi r e c tappe a l outof t i m e , w hi c h the d istrict co u rt d en ied . A fterre v iew , w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f B ro w n ’s m ot i on. I . B AC KG RO UN D A ft er B ro w n p l ed g u i l ty, th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced B ro w n t o 2 0 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd 5 y e a r s ’ s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e a nd e nt e r e d the j udgm e nton J ul y 10, 20 02 . A ft erpron ou nci ng the se nt ence , the di stri ctcourtadvi se d B row n thathe had t en days t o fi l e an app ea l , and B row n res po nd ed thathe un ders t oo d. H ow ever , B r o w n d id n o t f

ile ad ir e c t ap p e a l. T hr e e a nd aha l f

y e a r s l a t e r , on J a nua ry 10, 2006, B r ow n f i l e d a“ M ot i on pu rs uantt o T i t l e 18 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(a) (1), ” i n w hi ch he argued thathe had rece i ved i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l w he n hi s tr i a l a tt orne y f a i l e d t o f i l e anot i c e of appeal as B row n request ed. B row n d i d n otexpl ai n w hy he had w ai t ed ov erthree y e a r s t o f

i l e thi s m ot i on. T he di stri ctcourttransm i tt ed the m ot i on t o thi s C ou rt . In turn, thi s C ou rt c ons true d the m ot i on a s am ot i on f ora n out - of

- t i m e appe a l a nd r e turne d i tt o the di stri ctcourtbecause F eder al R ul e of A pp el l at e P roce du re 4(b)(4) provi des that on l y the di stri ctcourtm aygrantan ou t -of- t i m e app ea l . T he di stri ctcourtent er ed3

an order denyi ng B row n’ s m ot i on , fi nd i ng thatB row n h ad “ no tes t abl i shed suff i ci entre as on s f

or se eki ng t o fi l e an app ea l m ore than three and o ne-hal f y ears a f t e rhe w a s s e nt e nc e d. ” T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O rd i n ari l y, a cri m i n al d efen d an tm u stfi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal w i th i n t en d ays o f th e f in a l ju d g m e n t, a s p r o s c r ib e d b y R u le 4 o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

A p p e lla te P r oc e dur e . F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 225 F .3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 1 9 9 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h is r e q u ir e m e n t is “ju r is d ic tio n a l a n d s tr ic tly th appl i e d. ” P hi l l i ps , 225 F . 3d a t1200. H ow e ve r , unde rR ul e 4( b) , upon af i ndi ng of e xc us abl e ne gl e c torgood c aus e , the di s tr i c tc ourtm a y e xt e nd the t i m e f orf i l i ng a n o t i c e o f ap p e a l “ f

o rap e r i o d n o tt o e x c e e d 3 0 d a y s f r o m th e e x p i r a t i o n o f

th e t i me othe rw i s e pr e s c r i be d by R ul e 4( b) . ” F e d. R . A pp. P . 4( b) ( 4) ; s e e a l s o D i s m uke v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 864 F . 2d 106, 107 ( 11 C i r . 1989) . W e r e vi e w f orabus e of th d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f

aR u le 4 ( b ) m o tio n f

o rle a v e to f

ile a n o u t- o f

- tim e ap p e a l. D i s m uke , 864 F . 2d a t107. U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a rtie s ’ b r ie f s , w e d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le e rr or . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tB r ow n ha d not“ e s t abl i s he d s uf f i c i e nt r e a s ons f ors e e ki ng t o f

i l e a n appe a l m or e tha n thr e e a nd one - ha l f y e a r s a f t e rhe w as se nt ence d. ” T hi s det erm i nat i on w as no tan abuse of di sc re t i on gi ven that4

B r o w n f a ile d to g iv e a n y e x p la n a tio n a s to w h y h e w a ite d u n til J a n u a ry 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 to fi l e hi s m ot i on w hen h e w as se nt ence d o n Jul y 9, 20 02 . B row n w as ful l y i nform ed a ts e n t e n c i n g th a th e h a d t e n d a y s t o f i l e an o t i c e o f

ap p e a l , a n d , b y h i s o wn a d m i s s i o n , r e q u e s t e d th a th i s tr i a l c o u n s e l d o s o a f t e rth e s e n t e n c i n g . B r o wn o f f e r e d n o b a s is f

o rf in d in g th a t h is th r e e a n d o n e - h a lf y e a rd e la y in f

ilin g h is R u le 4 ( b ) m o tio n w a s d u e to e x c u s ab le n e g le c t o rth a t g o o d c au s e e x is ts to p e rm it h im to f ile a n o u t- o f

- tim e ap p e a l. Fu rth e rmo r e , Ru l e 4 ( b ) ( 4 ) p r o h i b i t s ad i s tr i c tc o u rtf r o m e x t e n d i n g th e t i me for f i l i ng a not i ce of appeal m ore than thi rty day s bey on d R ul e 4(b)’ s t en-day de a dl i ne . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G r a nt , 256 F . 3d 1146, 1150- 51 ( 11 C i r . 2001) th (f i nd i ng thatdefe nd ant ’ s s ec on d n ot i ce of appealw as fi l ed ou t si de the 30 -day w i ndow of

R ul e 4( b) ( 4) ) . B r ow n s oughtt o f i l e hi s not i c e of

appe a l w e l l be y ond thi s thi rty - da y pe r i od. T he di s tr i c tc ourte nt e r e d B r ow n’ s j udgm e nton J ul y 10, 2 0 0 2 . S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 ( b ) ( 6 ) . U n d e rR u le 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) a n d R u le 2 6 ( a ) , a no t i ce of appeal w as du e t o b e f i l ed on Jul y 24, 20 02 . U nd erR ul e 4(b)( 4), gi ven the pr ope rc i r c um s t a nc e s , the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s author i z e d t o e xt e nd tha tde a dl i ne to A u g u s t 2 3 , 2 0 0 2 , b u t n o f u rth e r . T h e r e f

o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng B r ow n’ s R ul e 4( b) m ot i on f i l e d on J a nua ry 10, 2006. F i nal l y, w e not e thatB row n d oes a l l ege i n h i s m ot i on thathi s c ou nsel w as5

i ne f f e c t i ve f ornotf i l i ng adi r e c tappe a l . A l t e rna t i ve l y , e ve n i f w e w e r e t o c ons true B r ow n’ s m ot i on a s am ot i on br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2255, thi s doe s not c ha nge the r e s ul t . T he one - y e a rpe r i od f orf i l i ng a§ 2255 m ot i on ha d e xpi r e d by J a nua ry 10, 2006, a nd B r ow n s e tf orth no f a c t s w hi c h w oul d a r guabl y t ol l the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) , ( 2) ; S t e e d v. H e a d, 219 F . 3d 1298, 13 00 (11 C i r. 20 00 ) ( ho l di ng thatequi t abl e t ol l i ng of § 2 24 4(d)’ s one-y ear

th l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od r e qui r e s “ e xtr a or di na ry c i r c um s t a nc e s tha ta r e both be y ond [ the defe nd ant ’ s] control and u navo i dabl e e ven w i th d i l i gence, ” w hi ch m eans m ore than a “ garden vari ety c l ai m of excusabl e negl ec t ” ( qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . F o r a ll o f th es e r ea so n s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f B ro w n ’s m ot i on. AF F I RME D.