FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 16, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1440 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 99-00022 -CR- RH- W CS UN IT ED ST AT ES OF AME RICA Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us DANIEL W RIGHT, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 16, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D an ie l Wri ght , pr oc ee din g pr o se , appe al s f ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion for leave to file a belate d appeal from the denial of his m otion for a2

ne w tri al , whi ch he ha d fi le d p ur su an t t o F ed . R. Cri m . P. 33 (“ Ru le 33 m ot io n” ). Wri ght ’ s R

ule 33 m oti on s ough t a

ne wtr ia l ba se d onhis c la im s of both ne w ly discovered evidence and newly discovered facts. T he district court denied Wri ght ’ s R

ule 33 m oti on o n F eb ru ar y 21, 200 1, tho ugh its or de r ad dr es se d on ly Wri ght ’ s ne w ly

dis co ve re d e vid en ce c la im s w ith out m en tio n of

his “ ne w ly di sc ov ered fact s” cla im

rel at in g t o t he tri al tes ti m on y of C ha rle s Will ia m s. InA ugus t 20 04, m or e than th re e y ears a ft er the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d hi s Rule 33 m otion , W

right filed a m otion for leave to file a belate d noti ce of a ppeal fr om that de nia l. I n th at

m oti on, Wri ght

arg ue d th at

he ne ve r re ce ive d no tic e of the denial of his Rule 33 m otion because the copy that wa s m ailed to him

wa s re tur ne d to the c ourt a s un de liv er ab le . T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Wri ght ’ s m oti on fo r le av e to f

ile abe la te d a

ppe al . O n a ppe al , Wri ght

arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n in de ny ing his m oti on f

or le av e to f

ile abe la te d no tic e of

appe al f ro m the de nia l of his Ru le 33 m oti on. Wri ght a lso arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in fa ili ng t o re sol ve his ne w ly

dis co ve re d f

ac ts c la im

a s to the te sti m ony

of gov er nm en t w itn es s W ill iam s. H e as se rt s th at w e shou ld i ssu e a w ri t of m an da m us, ins tr uc tin g the dis tr ic t c ourt t o r es olv e thi s c la im f or pur pose s of f ina lity , pur suant t o C lis by v. Jones, 960 F.2d 925 (11t h Cir. 1992 ) (e n banc).3 BEL ATED APPEAL W e re vie wthe de ci sio n onam oti on f or an e xte nsi on o f tim e to a ppe al f or anabuse of

dis cr et ion . I n r e O ld N ap le s S ec . , I nc . , 223 F . 3d 1 296, 130 2 n. 7 ( 11th Ci r. 200 0) . “ Inac ri m ina l c as e, ade fe ndant’ s no tic e of appe al m ust be f ile d inthe district court within 10 d ay s after ” the entry of the order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P . 4( b) (1 )( A )( i) . A lth oughthe c le rk of c ourt m ust pr ovi de not ic e to the d ef en d an tre g ar d i n g an y o rd eren t er ed o n an y p o s t -a rr ai g n m en tm o t i o n , acl er k ’s fa ilure to do s o “ doe s no t a ff ec t the ti m e to a

ppe al , or r el ie ve – or

auth or iz e the court to relieve – a party ’ s failure to appeal w ithin the allowed tim e. ” Fe d. R. Crim . P . 49(c) . How ever, upon a finding that the failure to file during the origin al period resulted from

“ excusable neglect or good cause”, the district court m ay au tho ri ze an e xte nsi on, but onl y f or ape ri od n ot t o “ ex ce ed

30 d ay s f ro m the expiration of tim e otherw ise prescribed by this Rule 4(b).” Fed. R. App. P. 4( b) (4 ); se e al so, U nit ed

S ta te s v. G rant, 256 F . 3d 1 146, 115 0- 51 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) (“ G rant’ s se co nd n oti ce of a ppe al , how ev er , w as f

ile d . . . m or e than 30 day s late an d th er ef

or e doe s no t f

al l w ith in the Ru le 4( b) (4 ) w ind ow . ”) . I n a ddi tio n to Ru le 4(b)(4), we also recognize the “ uniq ue circum stances doctrine” which excuses fa i l u re t o ab i d e b y t i m e l i m i t at i o n s wh er e t h e f ai l u re i s ca u s ed b y th e l i t i g an t ’s4

re as ona ble r el ianc e on a

j udi ci al of

fi ce r’ s sp ec if

ic a ssuranc e. S ee Ja ck son v. Crosby , 375 F. 3d 12 91, 1297 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). Wr i g h tc a n n o ts a t i s f

y t h e c r i t e r i af

o r an y o f th e e x c e p t i o n s t o th e t i me lim itation for filing a noti ce of a ppeal. W right didnot file his no tice of appeal w ith in the te n day s of

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t, nor w ith in an a ddi tio na l thirty day s be y ond that pe ri od, pr ec lud ing appl ic at ionof Ru le 4( b) (4 ). N or

c anWri ght re ly on the uni que c ir cum stanc es doc tr ine , a s Wri ght ’ s di d no t r el y upo n any

“ sp eci fic ass ur an ce b y

a jud ic ia l o ffer ” in fai li ng to ti m el y fil e h is no ti ce o f ap pe al . Se e V en co r H osps . v. S tandard L if e & A cc ide nt I ns. Co . , 279 F . 3d 1 306, 131 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) ( “ Cr

uc ia l t o th e ap pli catio n of the uni que c ir cum stanc es doc tr ine is the occurrence of a j udicial action up on which a party relies in fa iling to file a tim ely notice of appeal. A s a result, the m ere failure of the district court clerk's office to ser

ve Appellant with notice . . . does not constitu te a j udicial assurance oract io n s uf

fic ie nt to warran t re li ef u nd er the un iq ue cir cu m st an ces do ct rin e.”). W e thu s c onc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n inde ny ing Wri ght ’ s m oti on t o f

ile abe la te d no tic e of

appe al f ro m the de nia l of

his Ru le 33 m ot io n. MANDAMUS5

T he iss uanc e of

aw ri t of m an da m us i s “ ane xtr ao rd inary

r em edy , to be re se rv ed f or e xtr ao rd inary

sit ua tio ns. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. N or ie ga , 917 F . 2d 1 543, 1546 n.3 (11th Cir. 1990 ) (quotation om itted). T he party seeking m andam

us bears the bur de n of

de m onstratin g a“ cl ear an d in dis put ab le r igh t t o is suanc e of the w ri t. ” I d. W e ha ve e xe rc ise d our supe rv iso ry pow er s to ins tr

uc t di str ic t c ourts t o resolve all claim s for re lief ra ised in a habeas corpus petitio n regardless of w hether habeas relief

is ultim ately

granted or denied. C lisby , 960 F. 2d at 936 . How ever, our hol din g inCl isb y

aro se out of c onc er n f or the inc re as ing ly

pie ce m ea l natur e of fe de ra l ha be as c or pus lit igatio n, and i ts h old ing is lim ite d by it s own te rm s to habe as c as es . I d. C lis by thu s pr ovi de s no ba sis f

or aw ri t of m an da m us r eg ar din g the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to s pe ci fi ca lly

a ddr es s Wri ght ’ s R

ule 33 c la im

r el at ing to g ove rn m en t w itn es s W ill iam s. CON CLU SION Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d and the part ie s’ br ie fs , w e fi nd n o r ev er sib le er ro r. A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of Wri ght ’ s m oti on f

or le av e to f ile abe la te d a

ppe al f ro m the de nia l of

his Ru le 33 m oti on. AF FIRMED .