F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT AU GU ST 17 , 2 007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1617 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D.C. Dock etNos . 05-001 45-CV- CB 02-000 86-CR-CB TRUMAN RODNEY DANIEL , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OFAMERIC A, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab ama

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A ug us t 17, 200 7) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T rum anRo dne y

D an ie l, af

ed er al pr iso ne r ap pe ar ing pr o se , appe al s th e de nia l of his m oti on t o r eo pe n th e tim e fo r fi lin g anot ic e of appe al of his pr ev iou sly

de nie d 28 U . S. C. § 22 55 m oti on t o va cate his se nte nc e. N o r ev er sib le e rr o r h a s b e e ns h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that, pur suant t o th e re qui re m en ts o f Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)( 6), it c ouldnot reopen the tim e to appeal in this case. “ A district court’ s interpretation of federa l procedural rules is subjec t to de no vo rev ie w.” Venc orHos ps ., Inc . v. St an da rdLife & Acci de ntIns . Co., 27 9 F .3d13 06 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Adis tr ic t c ourt m ay

r eo pe n th e tim e to f

ile an a ppe al onl y

if c er ta in co ndi tio ns are satis fi ed , inc lud ing that “ the m oti on [ to r eo pe n] is fi le d w ith in 1 80 day s a ft er the j udgm en t or

or de r is e nte re d or

w ith in 7 day s a ft er

the m ovi ng p ar

ty r e c e i v e s n o t i c e u n d e r

F e d e r a l R

u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e du r e 7 7 ( d ) o f th e e n try, w hic he ve r is e ar lie r. ” F ed . R. App. P. 4( a) (6 )( B) ( em pha sis a dde d) ; se e al so V en co r H osps . , 279 F . 3d at 13 10 ( “ U nde r the pla in m eanin g of Ru le 4( a) (6 ), dis tr ic t c ourts ar e autho ri ze d to r eo pe n th e tim e fo r fi lin g an a ppe al ba se d onla ck

of not ic e sol el y within 180 day s of the j udgm ent or order. ”). In this case, the j udgm ent deny ing Daniel’ s section 22 55 m otion wa s entered on 9 January

2006 . Daniel asserts that he rece ived not ice of the district3

court’ s judgm ent on 29 August 200 6 and that he sub m itted his m otion to reopen w ith in s ev enday s of

that date . B ut b ec au se D an ie l di d no t f ile his m oti on t o re ope n by 10 July 200 6 - - w hic h w as 180 day s a ft er e ntr y of the 9 January

200 6 j udgm ent and was the e arlier of the lim its provi ded in Fed.R. App.P . 4(a )(6)( B) - - the district court properly denied his m otion to reopen. S ee F ed.R. App.P . 4( a) (6 )( B) ; F ed . R. App. P. 26( a) (3 ) (e xpl ai nin g date c al cu latio n whe n la st d ay of period falls on a we ekend). We a f f i rm th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt ’s d e n i a l o f D an i e l ’s mo t i o nt o r e o p e nth e t i me fo r fi lin g an a

ppe al . AFFIR MED.