2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-10-2010 

# Juan Li z ardo v

. U SA

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2044

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Juan L i zar do v

. U SA" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 680. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/6801 P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2044

J UAN F RA NC I S CO L I Z AR DO,
A ppel l ant

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

O n A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 3- 02- cv- 00155) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e C ur t i s V

. G om ez

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay3, 2010
B e f o re : S M IT H , C H A G A R E S , a n d J O R D A N , C i r cui t Judges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t10, 2010)T he D i stri c t C o u rthad j uri sdi ct i on ov er Lizar do ’s § 1 2255 pet i t i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1331. 2 N el s on L

. J ones O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney U nit ed S t at es C ou rtho use 5500 V et er ans B ui l di ng, Sui t e 260 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St

. T hom as , V i r gi n I s l ands , 00802 C ouns el f orAppel l ee Jo sep h A

. D iR u zz o , III L a w O f f ice o f M a rjo rie R o b e rts 1 H i bi s cus A l l ey St

. T hom as , V i r gi n I s l ands , 00802 C ouns el f orAppel l ant

OP I NI ON

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.
J uan Fr anci s co L i zar do w as convi ct ed of var iou s d rug cr i m es i n t he D i s t r i ctof the V i r gi n I s l ands

. H e l at erpet i t i oned f o r re lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied h is p e tit io n a n d h e so u g h t a n d re c e iv e d a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty t o t hi s C our t

. T h ree i s s ues w er e ce r t i fi ed forappea l , butthe 1 fi r s ti s d i s pos i t i ve: w hetherL i zar do’ s unt i m el ym ot i on forT he oth er i s s ues cert i fi ed forappea l w er e w hether 2 L i zar do’ s not i ce of

appea l w as t i m el yfi l ed underthe pr i s on m ai l box rul e and w hether t he D i s t r i ct C our t appl i ed the corr ect s t an d ar d i n eval uat i ng L i zar do’ s cl ai m t hathi s t r i al couns el depr i ved hi m of the r i ghtt o t es t i fyon hi s ow n behal f. L i zar do conce des t he form eri s s ue and w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o addr es s t he l at t eri s s ue.

U n less ot herw i s e not ed, al l r efe r ence s t o “R ul e 59” 3 re f e r to R u le 5 9 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re a s it exi s t ed i n 2008. U nl es s ot herw i s e not ed, al l r efe r ence s t o “R ul e 4” r efe r 4 to R u le 4 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re a s it exi s t ed i n 2008. 3 re c o n s id e ra tio n , s ee Fed. R

. C i v. P. 59( e) , t ol l ed the t i m e for f ilin g a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l, s ee F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 (a)(4)(A ). 2
R u le 5 9 (e ) i s a c la im -p ro c e s s in g ru le . A c c o rd in g ly, a

3 t i m el i nes s obj ect i on t o a mot i on br ought underthatrul e maybe for fei t ed i f i ti s notr ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t

. I n t hi s cas e, L i zar do’ s unt i m el yR ul e 59( e) m ot i on w as deci ded, w i t hout obj ect i on , b yt he D i s t r i ctC our t

. T he G overnm ent , ther efor e, for fei t ed anyt i m el i nes s objecti o n i tcoul d have made atthat sta g e o f th e lit ig a tio n . T h e f

o rf e itu re in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt, how ever , di d notr enderthe R ul e 59( e) m ot i o n ti m el yfor p u rp o se s o f

R u le 4 (a )( 4 ) ( A ) o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate P roc ed u re. T h e G o v ern m en t i s fre e to c h all en g e L izard o ’s

4T he cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y di d notcert i fythe i s s ue 5 o f w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rterro n eo u slyd en ied L izard o ’s m ot i on forr econs i derat ion and Li zar do fai l s t o r ai s e thati s s ue in th is a p p e a l. T h e r e f

o re , w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s it. 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 r el i ance on R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ’ s t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on— w hi ch r equi r es t hatt he under l y i ng R u l e 59( e) m ot i on t hati ni t i at ed the t ol l i ng h a v e b e e n tim e lyf

iled , F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(4 )(A )— in th is C o u rt. A s s u c h , the G o v e rn m e n t’s c h a llen g e in th is C o u rt to L iza rd o ’s in v o c a tio n o f R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A )’s to lli n g p ro v isio n is m er i t or i ous . W i t hout t he benef i tof t ol l i ng, L i zar do’ s not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y and hi s appea l m us tbe di s m i s s ed forl ack o f ju ri s d ic tio n . See F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 4 (a)(1)(B ).
I.
L iza rd o w a s c o n v ict e d o f c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e , 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 , co n sp ira c yto im p o rt c o c a in e in to th e U n ite d S ta te s , i d. § 963, and pos s es s i on w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te , i d. § 841( a) ( 1)

. O n A ugus t 16, 2002, L i zar do m oved t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under 28 U

. S. C

. § 2255. T h e Di s t r i c t Co u r t d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n o n J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8

. On February 29, 2008, L i zar do s oughtr econs i der at i on, w hi ch w as deni ed on M ar ch 17, 2008. A few w eeks l at er , on A pr i l 7, 2008, L iza rd o f iled h is no tice o f

a p p e a l, ch a llen g in g th e d e n ial o f h is m ot i on forr econs i der at i on and hi s § 2255 pet i t i on. O n M ay16, 2 0 0 8 , L iza rd o so u g h t a c e r tif ica te o f a p p e a lab ili tyf

ro m th is C our t

. W e gr ant ed one on Sept ember29, 2008. 52 2 5 3 (c ) ( 3 ) ; V i l l otv. V ar ner , 3 7 3 F

. 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 7 n . 1 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ); 3 d C ir. L .A .R . 2 2 .1 (b ); s ee F ed

. R

. A p p . P

. 2 8 (a)(5). 5 II.
I n a ci vi l cas e i nvol vi ng t he U ni t ed St ates, a not i ce of appea l m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n 60 day s aft ert he j udgm ent oror der a p p e a l e d f

r o m i s e n t e r e d

. F e d

. R. Ap p . P

. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B)

. I n s o me ci r cumst ance s , w her e a pa r t yhas ti m el yfi l ed a pos t
- j udgm ent m ot i on i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , the deadl i ne forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l m aybe t ol l ed unt i l thatm ot i on has been de ci ded: (4 ) E f f e c t o f a M o tio n o n a N o tic e o f A p p e a l. ( A ) I f a pa r t yt i m el yfi l es i n t he di s t r i ctcour tany of the fol l ow i ng m ot i ons underthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, the t i m e t o fi l e an appe al runs foral l par t i es fr om the ent r yof the or der di s pos i ng of the l as ts uch r emai ni ng m ot i on: (i ) fo r j u d g m en t un d er R u le 50 (b); ( i i ) t o amend orm ake addi t i onal fa ctua l fi n d ing s u n d er R u le 5 2 (b ), w hether or notgr ant i ng the mot i on w o u ld a lter th e ju d g m e n t; (i i i ) forat t orney ’s fees un der R ule 54 i f t h e d i s t r i ctcourtext ends the6 t i m e t o appea l underR ul e 58; ( i v) t o al t er or amend t he j udgm ent underR ul e 59; ( v) fora new tr i al underR ul e 59; or ( vi ) forr el i ef unde rR ul e 60 i f the m o t i o n i s f

i l e d n o l a t e rt h a n 1 0 d a ys aft ert he j udgm enti s ent er ed.
F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(4 ). A t th e tim e re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l, R u le 5 9 (b ) re q u ire d a p a rty se e k in g re c o n sid e ra tio n o f a n o rd e r to f

ile i t s R ul e 59( e) m ot i on w i t hi n t en day s of t hat or der

. Fed. R

. C i v. P

. 5 9 (b).
In L i zardo’s cas e, the fo l l ow i ng t i m el i ne o f eve n ts unfol ded:
Jan u ary2 5 , 2 0 0 8 T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed L izard o ’s § 2255 pet i t i on. Fe b ru a r y 8 , 2 0 0 8 D eadli n e fo r fil ing a m o ti o n for r econs i der at i on underR ul e 59( e) ( t en day s fr om t he Janua r y 25, 2008 o rde r). February 29, 2008 L i zar do m oved forr econs i der at i on u n d er R u le 59 (e).7 M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed L izard o ’s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M a r c h 25 , 20 08 If t here i s no to lli n g u n d e r R u le 4( a)( 4) ( A ) , t hen the t i m e forfi l i ng a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l e x p i r e s ( 6 0 d a ys fro m the J an u ary2 5 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r).
A pri l 7, 20 08 L iza rd o fi l ed a no t i ce of ap p e a l to th is C o u rt.
Ma y 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 If there i s to lli n g u n d e r R u le 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , t hen th e t i m e forfi l i ng a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l e x p i r e s ( 6 0 d a ys fro m the M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 o rde r).
I f Li zar do’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on t ol l ed the t i m e forfi l i ng a n o tice o f

a p p e a l, his n o tice o f

a p p e a l w a s tim e ly . If

it d id n o t, hi s not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el yand w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on. Fed. R . A p p . P . 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 7 (b ); s ee Bow l es v. R u ss e ll , 551 U

. S. 205, 21 2 -13 ( 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t hat p roc ed u ral rules g rou n d ed in statutes are juri sd ict ion al).
L iza rd o a rg u e s th a t th e G o v e r n m e n t w a iv e d its rig h t to o b jec t to th e to lli n g o f

th e n o tice o f

a p p e a l d e a d lin e b e c a u se it di d notobj ectt o hi s unt i m el yR ul e 59( e) m ot i on i n t he D i s t r i ctI n t he al t ernat i ve, L i zar do ar gues th at R ul e 4 deni ed 6 h im d u e p ro c e ss b e c a u se it d id n o t p ro v id e h im e n o u g h tim e to fi l e a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. B ec au se thati s s ue w as not c e rt if ie d f o r a p p e a l, w e n e e d n o t a d d re s s i t

. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(3 ); V

i l l ot , 3 7 3 F

. 3 d at 33 7 n . 1 3 ; 3d C ir

. L

. A

. R

. 2 2

. 1 (b); s ee F ed . R

. A p p . P

. 2 8 (a)(5). W e a lso n o te th at L izard o ’s al l eged d u e proc es s vi ol at i on i s bas ed on as s um pt i ons thathe conce des ar e uns uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. L i zar do as s um es that (1 ) th e Ja n u a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r w a s n o t m a ile d to h im u n til J a n u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 , ( 2 ) i t w o u l d t a k e f i v e t o s e v e n b u s i n e s s d a ys f o r th e Ja n u a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r to re a c h a n a d d re ss in th e V irg in I s l ands , and ( 3) del i veryt o a pr ison i nm at e w oul d t ake a d d iti o n a l ti m e . B a se d o n th e se a ss u m p tio n s, h e a rg u e s th a t it w ould notbe unr eas onabl e t o fi nd thatt he J anuary25, 2008 or derdi d notarr i ve unt i l aft erFebruary11, 2008. W e dec l i ne to e ngage i n s uch s pecul at i on. M or eover , even i f w e cr edi t ed t hes e as s um pt i ons ande v a l u at ed hi s cl ai m on the mer i t s , L i zar do d o e s n o tc i t e a n ys u p p o r t i n g l e g a l a u t h o r i t yf o rh i s c l a i m. 8 C our t

. T he “ques t i on [of] w hether[Li zar do] ’ s not i ce of appea l 6
w as ti m elyis a qu esti o n o f l aw o v er w h ich w e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew . ” D L R es . , I

nc. v. F i rs t

E ner gy Sol ut i ons C or

p. , 506 F. 3d 2 0 9 , 2 1 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).
R ul e 59( e) i s a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng rul e, nota j ur i s di ct i onal rul e, so o bject i ons bas ed on the t i m el i nes s r equi r ementof that rul e m a ybe fo rfei t ed. B ut the fo rfei ture of a ti m el i ness o b jec tio n in th e d istric t co u r t d o e s n o t re n d e r a n u n tim e ly mo t i o n t i me l y f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

Ru l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) i n th i s Co u r t

. As9 su c h , the G o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to o b

jec t to L iza rd o ’s u n tim e ly R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t f o re c lo se its ab i l i t yt o chal l enge the t i m el i nes s of thatm ot i on forthe p u rpo ses o f to ll ing u n d er R u le 4(a )(4)(A ).
A.
L iza rd o ’s R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n w a s u n tim e ly . H e f iled h is m o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o v er a m o n th af ter the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed hi s § 2255 pet i t i on, w el l aft erthe t en day s p rov i ded by t he rul e. Fed. R

. C i v. P. 59( b)

. T he G overnm ent di d notobj ect t o L i zar do’ s m ot i on as unt i m el yand the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed t he m oti on on t he m eri t s.
U nderourpr e- B ow l es pr ece dent , “anys ubs t ant i ve ac t i on a courtt [ook] on an unt i m el y m ot i on [w oul d have been de emed] a nul l i t y . ” Sm i th v. E vans , 8 5 3 F. 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1988) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h u s, “ [ a ] n u n tim e ly m o tio n , ev e n if

a c ted u p o n b y th e d istric t co u rt, [c o u ld n o t] to ll t he t i m e forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l , ” i d. at157. W e r eac hed t hes e conc l us i ons bas ed on our under s t andi ng thata “Rul e 59( e) m o tio n m u st b e se rv e d w ith in ten d a y s o f e n tryo f ju d g m e n t” beca us e “[ t ] he ten dayper i od i s j ur i s di ct i onal , and ca nnotbe ext ended i n t h e d is cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcourt

. ” I d. ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )

. We r e we t o f o l l o w t h i s a p p r o a c h , we w ou l d d i sm i ss Lizar do ’s app eal for l ack of jur i sdi ct i on becau se R ul e 59( e) ’ s t en day t i m e l i m i t , appl i ed as a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e, w o u l d h a v e r e n d e r e d t h e m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n u l l i t y.A lth o u g h In ter n a l O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re 9 .1 g e n e ra lly 7 bar s us fr om “overrul [i ng] the hol di ng i n a pre cede nt i al opi ni on o f a p rev iou s p an el” w ith o u t “e n b an c reco n side rati o n , ” 3d C ir

. I O P § 9. 1, “a pa n el of ourC our tm aydecl i ne t o fol l ow a pr i or deci s i on of ourC our tw i t houtt he nec es s i t yo f an en banc d ec isi o n w h en the p ri o r de cisi o n co n fli cts w ith a S u p rem e C o u rt d e c i s i on. ” U

n ited Stat es v. Tann , 5 7 7 F

. 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 4 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). 10 L izar do w oul d notbe abl e t o i nvoke R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ’ s t ol l i ng pr ovi s i on and hi s not i ce of appea l w oul d be unt i m el y . W hi l e the resul t w e reach t od ay i s t he sam e, w e can no l on ger t reat R u le 5 9 (e ) a s a ju risd ictio n a l ru le, n o r v iew L iza rd o ’s u n tim e ly m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s a n u l l i t y.
W hatcons t i tut es a j ur i s di ct i onal rul e has under gone sign ifi ca n t ch a n g e in rec en t y ea rs. T h e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i ons i n B ow l es , E ber har tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 546 U

. S. 12 ( 2005) ( percur i am), and Kontr i ck v

. Ryan , 5 4 0 U

. S

. 4 4 3 (20 0 4 ), r equi r e us t o departfr om ourpr e- B ow l es appr oach. R ul e 59( e) 7 c a n n o l o n g e r b e d e e me d a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ru l e . T he B ow l es C our texpl ai ned t hat t i m e l i m i t s t hat ar e not bas ed on a s t atut e, s uch as t he one gove r ni ng R ul e 59( e) , ar e notj ur i s di ct i onal ru le s , b u t c la im -p ro c e s s in g ru le s . S e e Bo wl es , 55 1 U

. S. at 210- 11. “[S] t atut e- bas ed fi l i ng per i od[s ] , ” on the otherhand, a re ju ri s d ic tio n a l. I

d. a t 2 1 2

. C o m

p a r e id

. at 213 ( hol di ng that f a ilu re to f

ile n o tic e o f

a p p e a l in a c c o r d a n c e w ith 2 8 U .S .C . § 2107( c) and R ul e 4( a) ( 6) r es ul t ed i n an e rrorof “j ur i s di ct i onal11 m a g n itu d e ” ), w i th Kontr i ck , 540 U

. S. at452 -56 ( hol di ng t hat R ul e 4004 of the Feder al R ul es of B ankrupt cyPr ocedur e w as notj ur i s dict i onal i n par tbeca us e i tw as notgr ounded i n a statu te).
A ccor di ng t o B ow l es , “court
- pr om ul gat ed rules, ” 551 U .S . a t 2 1 1 -1 2 , a re d is tin c t f ro m “ lim its e n a c te d b yC o n g re s s ,” a n d s h o u ld n o t b e tr e a te d a s ju ri s d ic tio n a l ru le s , i d. at212. For e x a m p le, “ th e ru le- b a se d tim e lim it fo r c rim in a l ca se s,” a c o u rtpr om ul gat ed rul e, “maybe w ai ved bec aus e ‘

. . . p roc edura l ru les a d o p ted b yth e C o u rt f o r th e o rd e rlytra n sa c tio n o f its b u sine ss are n o t ju risd ict ion al an d ca n b e re laxe d b ythe C o u rt i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i t s d i s c r e t i o n . . . . ’ ” I d. (qu o t i ng Schacht

v. U ni t ed Stat es , 398 U

. S. 58, 64 ( 1970) )

. Si m i l ar l y , R ul e 4004 of t he F ederal R ules o f B ank rupt cyP rocedu re, a rul e t hat s et s a de a dl i ne fo rob

j e c t i ng t o a de bt or ’ s di s c ha r ge , Fe d. R. Bank r . P. 4 0 0 4 , w a s d e e m e d a c laim -p ro c e ss in g ru le, a n d d id n o t af f e c t a c o u rt ’s ju ri s d ic tio n . Kontr i ck , 540 U

. S. at452- 56.
R u le 59( e) i s aki n t o R ul e 4004 of the Feder al R ul es of B ankrupt cyP roce dur e. B oth rul es w er e pr om ul gat ed bythe S u p re m e C o u rt u n d e r t h e R u le s E n a b lin g A c t. C om par e 28 U

. S

. C

. § § 2 0 7 1 -20 7 2 (R u le 5 9 ), w ith 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 0 7 5 (R u le 4004)

. N ei t herrul e ext ends o r li m it s the j ur i s di ct i on of the c o u rt s . Kontr i ck , 5 4 0 U .S . at 4 5 3 (n o tin g th a t “it is a x io m a tic t hat[rul es pr o m u lgat ed undert he R ul es E nabl i ng A ct ] do not c r e a t e o rwi t h d r a w fe d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ” ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t at i on m ark s o m itted). C om

pa re F ed

. R

. B ankr

. P. 9030 ( “The[]A s i m i l arcompar i s on can be m ade t o t he rul e ati s s ue 8 i n E berha rt
. See 5 4 6 U

. S

. at 15 -20

. T h ere , the S u p rem e C o u rt h e ld th a t R u le 3 3 o f

th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C rim in a l P ro c e d u re is a c la im -p ro c e s s in g ru le

. I d. at13. 12 [Feder al R ul es of B ankrupt cy Pr ocedur e] s hal l notbe cons t rued t o ext end orl i m i tt he j ur i s di ct i on of the c o u rt s orthe venue of a n ym a tte rs th e re in .” ), w i th Fed. R

. C i v. P. 82 ( “The[] [Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e] do notext end orl i m i tthe j ur i s di ct i on o f th e d istri ct co u rt s o r th e v en u e o f a cti o n s in tho se c o u rt s. ”). T her efor e, l ike B ankrupt cyR ul e 4004, R ul e 59( e) ’ s fi l i ng d e a d lin e is a “ c la im -p ro c e ss in g ru le[ ] th a t d o [ e s] n o t d e lin e a te w hatcas es . . . cour t s ar e com p eten t t o adj udi cat e. ” Kontr i ck , 540 U

. S. at454; N

at ’ lE col o g i cal

Found. v. A l exande r , 496 8 F

. 3d 46 6, 47 5-76 (6t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( ho l ding t hat R u le 5 9 (e) i s a c la im s p r o c e ss in g ru le) ; F irst A ve . W

. B ldg

. , L L Cv. Ja m es (I n r e O n e c a s t Me d ia , In c .) , 439 F. 3d 558, 562 ( 9th C ir

. 2006) (sa m e ); s e e Di l lv . Gen

. Am. Li f e I n s . Co. , 5 2 5 F. 3d 612, 618 ( 8 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tF e d

. R. Ci v . P

. 50 ( b) i s a c l a i mp roc essin g rule).
B eca u s e Rul e 5 9 ( e ) i s a c l a i m- p r o c e s s i n g ru l e , an obj ect i on bas ed on the unt i m el i nes s of a Rul e 59( e) m ot i on m ay b e f o rf e ite d

. See E berha rt , 546 U

. S. at19. “[ W ] her e the G overnm entfai l [s ] t o r ai s e a defe ns e of unt i m el i nes s unt i l aft er t he D i s t r i ctC our tha[ s] r eac hed the mer i t s , i tfor fei t [s ] t hat defe ns e. ” I

d. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on forr econs i derat ion aft ercons i der i ng i t s m er i t s . T hus , the13 G overnm entfor fei t ed i t s abi l i t yt o chal l enge Li zar do’ s m ot i on f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n a s u n tim e lyin th e D istric t C o u rt.
H avi ng es t abl i s hed t hat R ul e 59(e ) i s a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng rul e and thata t i m el i nes s obj ect i on t o a R ul e 59( e) m ot i on m ay be for fei t ed, w e turn t o t he quest ion of w hethert he G overnm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o L i zar do’ s unt i m el ym ot i on for r econs i der at i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor fei t ed t hatobj ect i on for p u rpo ses o f R u le 4(a )(4)(A ).
B.
R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A ) ( i v ) s t a t e s th a t“ [ i ] f a p a r t y t i m el

y f iles in t he di s t r i ctcour t[a mot i on t o al t er oramend t he j udgm entunder R ul e 59] , t he t i m e t o fi l e an a ppeal runs foral l part i es fr om t he entr y of t he or der di s pos i ng of t he l as t s uch re m ai ni ng mo t i o n [

. ] ” Fe d

. R. Ap p . P

. 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. An unt i m el y R ul e 59( e) m ot i on does nott ol l the t i m e forfi l i ng an a p p e a l u n d e r R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ). T h is is tru e e v e n if th e p a rty op po si ng t he m oti on did n ot obj ectt o the m oti on ’s un t i m el i ness a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e re d th e m o tio n o n th e m e ri ts

. See B row der v. Il l

. D ep’tof C orr. , 4 3 4 U

. S

. 2 5 7 , 2 6 4 -65 (1 9 7 8 ); G ar ci a- V

elaz quezv. Fr i t o Lay Snacks C ar r i bean , 3 5 8 F

. 3d 6, 1 0 -1 1 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); P anhors tv. U ni t ed Stat es , 241 F. 3d 367, 3 7 0 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); W

ight v. B ankAm er i ca C or p. , 219 F. 3d 79, 8 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); cf

. G ut i er r ezv. Johns on & J ohns on , 523 F. 3d 1 8 7 , 1 9 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ [ T ]h e f a c t th a t [ a ] m o tio n w a s tim e ly forthe purpos es of the D i s t r i ct C o ur t ’ s s chedul e does not14 n e c e s s a ri ly m a k e it tim e ly f o r a n a p p e a l to th is C o u rt .” ).
L iza rd o u rg e s u s to f

o llo w th e S ix th C irc u it, w h ich h e ld t hat“w her e a pa r t yfor fei t s an obj ect i on t o the u n ti m el i nes s of a R ul e 59( e) m ot i on [i n the di s t r i ctcourt ] , thatfor fei tur e makes th e m o tio n ‘t im e ly’ f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f

R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A )( iv ).” N at ’ lE col ogi cal

Found. , 4 9 6 F .3 d a t 4 7 6

. T h a t C o u rt c o u ld “di s cern no r eas on for hol di ng t hat an otherw i s e pr oper l yfi l ed m o tio n th a t w a s c o n sid e re d b yth e d istric t co u rt w o u ld f a il to to ll t he t i m e forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l

. ” I

d. T her e are sev er al r eas ons w hyw e depa r tfr om the Si xth C i r cui t ’ s appr oach.
F i rs t , i tcreat es a di spari t yi n tr eat m ent betw een the fi rs t fi ve types of pos t
-

j udgm entm ot i ons and the l as tt ype l i s t ed u n d e r R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ), R u le 6 0 m o ti o n s. U n d e r R u le 4( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) ( v i ) , i n i t s c u r r e n tf o r m, t h i s Cou r t , n o tt h e d i s t r i ct cour t , i s r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hethert he R ul e 60 mot i on w as f ile d “ n o la te r t h a n 2 8 d a y s a f te r t h e j u d g m e n t [ w a ]s e n te re d .” Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( vi ) ( 2010)

. T hus , the ci r cumst ance s o f th e li ti g a tio n in the d istri ct co u rtare irrelev an t t o w h ethe r a R u le 60 m o tio n is ti m elyfo r pu rpo ses o f R u le 4(a )(4)(A ). U ndert he Si xt h C i r cui t ’ s appr oach, how ever , t he t i m el i nes s of t he other pos t
-

j udgm ent m ot i ons w oul d be det erm i ned bas ed on the pr ocee di ngs i n t he di s t r i ctcour t

. W hethert hos e mot i ons w er e t i m el yfi l ed w oul d depend i n partupon the q u ali tyof the par t yoppos i ng t he mot i on’ s couns el at t he di s t r i ct cour t

. I f that par t y ’ s couns el fai l ed t o obj ectt o t he t i m el i nes s of the mot i on, w e w oul d be for ced t o deem t he t i m e to fi l e a not i ce of appea l15 t ol l ed. T her e i s no r ea so n ed expl anat i on fortr eat i ng R ul e 60 m o ti o n s d if

f e re n tlyf ro m th e o th e r m o tio n s liste d u n d e r R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A ).
In f a c t, th e d is p a rityw o u ld f ru stra te o n e o f

R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A )’s p u r p o se s— to p ro v id e th e sa m e d e a d lin e f o r a ll p o st- jud g m en t m o ti o n s li sted u n d er tha t ru le

. T h e A d v isory C om m i t t ee’ s not es on t he 2009 amendm ent s t o R ul e 4 s t at e that s ect i on ( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( vi ) w as amended t o m at ch t he t i m el i ne of t he ot herpos t
-

j udgm entm ot i ons thatpr ovi de fort ol l i ng:
For m er l y , t he t i m e l i m i tunders ubdi vi s i on ( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( vi) w as 10 day s , r efl ect i ng t he 10- day l i m it s form aki ng m ot i ons underC i vi l R ul es 5 0 (b ), 5 2 (b ), an d 5 9 . S u b d iv is io n (a )(4 )(A )(v i) now cont ai ns a 28-da yl i m i tt o m at ch the r evi s i ons t o the t i m e l i m i t s i n the C i vil R ules

. Fed. R

. A pp. P. 4 (20 10) ( N ot es of A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee on 2009 A m endment s )

. D at i ng back t o atl east1995, t he amendm ent s t o R ul e 4 have r epea t ed lys oughtt o “s t andar di ze t he t i m e i n w hi ch pos t

j udgm ent m o ti ons m us tbe made” under R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A )

. 16A C har l es A

. W r i ght , A r t hurR

. M i ll er, E d w a rd H

. C o o p e r & C a th e ri n e T . S tru v e , Feder alP r act i ce and P roce du re: Jurisdi ct i on an d R el ated M atters § 3950. 4 at330 ( 4t h ed. 20 0 8 ). T hi s i nt er es ti n a uni form deadl i ne w oul d be defe at ed byan appr o ach t o t ol l i ng t hati s l ar gel ydepende nton w hatoccurr ed i n t he di s t r i ctcourt for R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( i ) t hr ough (v ), b u t is b a se d so lelyo n o u r o w n tim in g c a lcu la ti o n f o r R u le16 4 (a)(4)(A )(vi).
I n addi t i on, t he Si xth C i r cui t ’ s appr oach cr eat es uncert ai nt yi n t he appe al t i m el i ne. T he 2009 amendm ent s t o t he F e d e ra l R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , w h ic h , in tera lia , ext ended the t i m e forfi l i ng a R ul e 59(e ) m ot i on fr om t en t o t w enty - ei ght day s , s how t hatR ul e 4 i s i nt ended t o enforce the dea dl i nes pr ovi ded i n t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, not varythem b ase d o n the h ap p en stan ce o f a p artic u la r l it igation

. In di s cus s i ng t he ext ens i on of t i m e forfi l i ng a R ul e 59( e) m ot i on, th e A d v is o r y C o m m itt e e N o tes e x p lain th a t th e tim e p e rio d to f ile s u c h a m o tio n is “ p a rticu lar lyse n sitiv e b e c a u se A p p e llate R ul e 4 i nt egr at es t he t i m e t o appea l w i t h a t i m el ym ot i on under [R u le 59 ]. ” F ed

. R

. C iv. P. 59 (20 1 0 ) (N o tes o f A d v iso ry C o m m itt e e o n 2 0 0 9 A m e n d m e n ts). In d e e d , R u le 4 ’s m a in p u rp o se is “to se t a d e f in ite p o in t o f tim e w h e n lit ig a tio n s h a ll be atan end[

. ] ” B r ow der , 434 U

. S. at264 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. I n fur t her ance of thi s purpose, the 2009 amendm entext endi ng t he fi l i ng deadl i ne fora R ul e 59( e) m ot i on fr om t en t o t w enty - ei ghtday s w as par t i al l ym ot i vat ed by t he des i r e t o pr ovi de addi t i onal t i m e t o fi l e t he m ot i on w hi l e not i n j e c t i n g u n c e r t a i n t y i n t o t h e a p p e a l t i me l i n e b y g r a n t i n g t he d istri ct co u rtd iscreti o n to se t anyd ea d li n e f o r th e m o ti o n ’s f ili n g . “R a th e r th a n in tro d u c e th e p ro sp e c t o f u n c e rta in tyin a p p e a l tim e b ya m e n d in g R u le 6 (b ) to p e rm it a d d itio n a l tim e ,” Fed. R

. C i v. P. 59 ( 2010) ( N otes of A dvi s oryC om m i t t ee on 2 0 0 9 A m e n d m e n ts)— b y , sa y , p e rm itt in g a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to fil e a R u le 5 9 (e) m o ti o n fo r “g o o d ca u se,” a s d istri ct co u rt s are17 pe r mi t t e d t o d o f

ors ome o t her m oti on s , Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 6 (b )(1 )— R u le 6 (b )’s p ro h ib iti o n o n th e e x ten sio n o f tim e to f ile a Rul e 59 ( e ) mot i on w a s s pe c i fi c a l l y pr e s e r ve d, Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 59 ( 2010) ( N ot es of A dvi s o ryC om m i t t ee on 2009 A m endment s )

. Fed. R

. C i v. P. 6( b) ( 2) ( “A co u rt m us tnot ext end the t i m e t o actunderR ul e[]

. . . 59[( e)

. ] ”)

. H ol di ng that a n u n tim e lyR u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n is tim e lyf o r p u rp o se s o f

R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) b yv irtu e o f th e o p p o sin g p a rty ’s f a ilu re to o b

jec t to t hatunt i m el i nes s i n the di st r i ctcour tw oul d acc om pl i s h t he oppos i t e r es ul tof that i nt ended by t he 2009 amendm ent s . T he “un ce rt ai nt yi n appea l t i m e, ” Fed. R

. C i v. P. 59 ( 2010) ( N ot es of A dvi s or yC om m i t t ee on 2009 A m endment s ) , w oul d be em bedded i n t he l i t i gat i on pr oces s . A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ect L i zar do’ s r eques tt hatw e fol l ow t he Si xth C i r cui t ’s appr oach.
III

. W e h o l d t hatan unt i m el yR ul e 59( e) m ot i on, even one t hatw as notobj ect ed t o i n the d istr i ctcour t , does nott ol l the t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l underR u le 4(a ) ( 4) ( A )

. T he G o v ern m en t’ s fo rfe itu re o f th e ti m eli n ess o b jecti o n to L izard o ’s R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t f o rf e it i ts tim e lin e ss c h a llen g e b a se d o n R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) m a d e b e f o re th is C our t

. B eca us e Li zar do’ s unt i m el y R u le 5 9( e) m ot i on di d not t ol l t he t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l , hi s not i ce of appe al w as unt i me l y a n d we mus t d i s mi s s h i s a p p e a l f o r l a c k ofW e e x p re ss n o o p in io n o n w h e th e r R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) is 9 a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng orj ur i s di ct i o n al rul e. I ndeed, anys uch expr es s i on w oul d be di ct a bec aus e i ti s undi s put ed thatthe G overnm entpr oper l yr ai s ed the t i m el i nes s chal l enge ba s ed on R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) b e f

o re th is C o u rt.

18 j ur i s di ct i on. 9B e c a u s e th is c a s e c e n te rs s o s ig n if ic a n tly o n t i m in g , I 1 not e the fol l ow i ng t i m el i ne as backgr ound fort he discus s i on th a t f o llo w s:

1 Liz ar do v. U

SA , N o. 08- 2044 J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge, C o n c u rre n c e a n d D iss e n t W h ile I a g re e w ith m yc o llea g u e s th a t L iza rd o ’s u n tim e ly m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n – e v e n th o u g h it w a s n o t o b jec ted to i n t he di s t r i ctcour t– does not t ol l t he t i m e forfi l i ng an appe al underA ppel l at e R ul e 4(a ) ( 4) ( A ) , and thatt her efor e hi s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U

. S. C

. § 2255 pet i t i on is u n tim e ly , I b e liev e th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt’ s d e c isio n in B ow l es v. R ussell , 5 5 1 U

. S

. 2 0 5 , 2 0 9 (20 0 7 ), compel s t he concl us i o n th a tApp e l l a t e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) i s a cl ai m s - pr oces s i ng rul e and t h a t d e f

enses un der that rule can, i n cert ai n inst ances, be w ai ved. T hus , I bel i eve t hat w ai ver of a t i m el i nes s obj ect i on can indeed be m ade u nd er A pp el l at e R ule 4( a)( 4)( A ), an d so w ri te sep ara tel y . N e v e rth eless, be ca u se th e g o v ern m en t’ s tim e lin e s s o bj e c t io n w a s n o t e f f e c tiv e ly w a iv e d in th is c a s e , I r es pect ful l y concur i n t he por t i on of t he M aj or i t y ’s opi ni on hol di ng t hat t her e i s no j ur i s di ct i on over L i zar do’ s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s § 2255 pet i t i on. T o the ext ent t hat t he M aj or i t y hol ds t hat w e do not have j ur i s di ct i o n o v er L i zar do’ s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , h o w e v e r, I re sp e c tf u llyd iss e n t.
I . L i zardo’ s A ppeal f rom t he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s D eni al of hi s § 2 25 5 Pe t i t i on a nd Tol l i ng 1Au g u s t 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 : L izard o m oves t o vaca t e hi s s ent ence under§ 2255.
J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 : T he D i s t r i ct C our t deni es his § 2 255

pet i t i on. F e b ru a ry 8 , 2 0 0 8 : T h is i s the d e a d lin e f o r L iza rd o to f

ile h is R ul e 59( e) m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. ( N ot e: t he t i m el i ne cont ai ned i n R ul e 59( e) w as 10 day s fr om entr yof j udgm entatt he ti m e of Li zar do’ s cas e; t oday , i ti s 28 d ay s).
Fe b ru a r y2 9 , 2 0 0 8 : L i zar do fi l es a pr o s e R u l e 5 9 ( e ) mot i on

forr econs i der at i on. M arch 17 , 20 08 : T h e D i stri ct C ou rt de n ies L iza rd o ’s R u le

59( e) m ot i on. M ar ch 25, 2008: T h is is the deadl i ne for L i zar do t o fi l e an

a p p e a l f ro m th e Ja n u a ry2 5 d e n ial o f h is § 2255 pet i t i on , ass um i ng t her e i s not t ol l i ng bas ed on hi s R ul e 59( e) m ot i on. Ap r i l 7 , 2 0 0 8 : L i zar do fi l es a pr o s e not i ce o f appea l fr om ( 1) the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J anu ary25 d en i al of hi s §2255 pet i t i on A N D ( 2) t he D istric t C o u rt’s M a rc h 1 7 d e n ia l o f h is R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n .

2M ay16, 2008: T hi s i s t he d ea d li n e fo r L i zar do t o fi l e an a p p e a l if th e re is t o lli n g b a se d o n h is R u le 59( e) m ot i on. M a y 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 : L iza rd o se e k s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili ty (“ C O A ” ) f

ro m o u r c o u rt. S e p t

. 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 : We g r a n tth e CO A.

3 I n B ow l es , t he Supr eme C our thel d thatt he t i m e forfi l i ng a n o tice o f

a p p e a l in c iv il ca s e s , se t f o rth in A p p e llate R u le 4( a) ( 6) , i s “mandat or yand j ur i s di ct i onal ” and t hus notw ai vabl e. 5 5 1 U

. S

. at 2 0 9 (qu o tat ion s o m itted). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt g ro u n d e d its h o ld in g in th e f a c t th a t th e tim e lim itatio n in Ap p e l l a t e Ru l e 4 ( a ) ( 6 ) “ i s s e t fo r t h i n a s t a tu t e , 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 1 0 7

. ” I

d

. at213. T he C our texpr es s l ynot ed “the ju ri s d ic tio n a l d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n c o u rt -p ro m u l g a te d ru le s ,” w h ic h a re n o t s ta tu te -d ri v e n , a n d “ lim its e n a c te d b yC o n g re s s ,” s u c h a s A p p e l l a te R u le 4 (a )( 6 ). Id

. at 21 1 -12

. T h e C o u rt r efe r r ed t o t he court
- pr om ul gat ed rul es as “cl ai m s - pr oces s i ng” or“nonj ur i s di ct i onal ” rul es and i tconcl uded thatthos e rul es “maybe w ai ved. ” Id

. at 21 2 , 2 1 6

. O n the o ther h an d , the C o u rt hel d t hat a l i t i gant s ubj ect t o a t i m e fr ame s et bys t atut e “c annotT he Supr eme C our t d i d notdi s t i ngui s h betw een the 2 ter m s “ w a iv e r” a n d “ f o rf e itu re ,” a n d u se d th e m to g e th e r to des cr i be w hatcan oc curundera cl ai m s - pr ocessi n g rul e. For p u rp o se s o f

sim p licity , I u se th e ter m “ w a iv e r,” a lt h o u g h , in cert ai n i ns t ance s , t he di ffe r ence betw een a know i ng and del i ber at e w ai verver s us an i nadvert entfor fei tu re maybe sig n if ica n t. A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) p ro v id e s th a t: 3
I f a p art yt i m el yfi l es i n the di s t r i ctcour tanyof the fol l ow i ng m o tio n s u n d e r th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il P ro c e d u re , th e tim e to fi l e an a ppeal runs foral l par t i es fro m the entr yof the or der d isp o sin g o f

th e las t su c h re m a in in g m o tio n : (i) f o r ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 5 0 (b ); ( i i ) t o a me n d o rma k e a d d i t i o n a l f a c tu a l f i n d i n g s u nder R u le 5 2 (b ) , w h e th e r o r n o t g ra n tin g th e m o tio n w o u ld a lter th e ju d g m e n t; (i ii ) f o r a tt o rne y ’s f

ee s u n d er R u le 5 4 if the d istri ct co u rt e x ten d s th e tim e to a p p e a l u n d e r R u le 5 8 ; 4 r el yon for fei tur e orw aive r t o excus e hi s l ack of compl i ance 2 w i t h t he s t atut e’ s t i m e l i m i t at i ons . ” Id

. a t 2 1 3

. A l t hough 28 U

. S. C

. § 2107 s et s for t h the t i m e fort aki ng a n a p p e a l, i t d o e s n o t co n ta in th e to lli n g p ro v isio n f o u n d in A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , nor does i t embodyi n anyw aythe 3(iv ) to a lter o r a m e n d th e ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 5 9 ; (v) f o r a n ew tr ial u n d er R u le 59 ; or ( vi ) forr el i ef unde rR ul e 60 i f t he m ot i on i s fi l ed no l at er th a n 2 8 d a y s a f

te r t h e ju d g m e n t is e n te re d

. F ed era l R u le of

C i vi l Pr ocedur e 59(e ) ad d resse s w h at are 4 s om et i m es cal l ed m ot i ons for r econs i der at i on, and provi des t hat “[a ] m ot i on t o al t er or amend a j udgm ent m us tbe fi l ed no l at er t han 28 day s aft ert he entr yof the j udgm ent

. ” A tthe t i m e that L i zar do fi l ed hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, t he t i m efr ame se t b yth e ru le w a s 1 0 d a y s ra th e r t h a n 2 8 d a y s . 5 rul es of ci vi l pr ocedur e l i s t ed i n A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , s uch as Feder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 59( e) , the rul e ati s s ue i n the p re se n t m a tter. A s a n in iti a l m a tter, th e n , I b e liev e th a t B ow l es 4 re q u ire s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t, be c a u se th e tim e p e rio d s n o ted in A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) a re n o t se t f o rth in a sta tu te, th e ru le m us t be c l a s s i f

i e d a s c l a i ms - p r oces s i ng r at her t han j ur i s di ct i onal

. M ycol l eague s i n t he M ajorityr ecogni ze that R ul e 5 9 ( e ) i s a “ c l a i m[ s ]

- p r o c e s s i n g ru l e , ” a n d th a tth e r e f or e, “an obj ect i on bas ed on the unt i m el i nes s of a Rul e 59( e) m ot i on m aybe for fei t ed. ” M aj

. O p. at9. Y et , t hey “expr es s no opi ni on on w hether R u le 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) i s a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng or j ur i s di ct i onal rul e. ” Id

. a t 9 n . 9 . In o th e r w o rd s, th e M a jo rity decli ne s to st at e exp l i ci t l ythat A pp el l at e R ule 4( a)( 4)( A ) i s a cl ai m s- processi ng rul e t hat al l ow s a party t o w ai ve a t i m el i ness obj ec t i o n . Gi v e n th e “

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l ” v e r s u s “ c l ai m s - pr oces s i ng” di vi de del i neat ed i n B ow l es , how ever , t her e i s no bas i s t o dr aw6 a di s t i nct i on betw een R ul e 59( e) , a rul e notdi ct at ed bys t atut e, and A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , anot h er rul e notdi ct at ed by s t atut e. A ccor di ngl y , I s ee no w ay t o avoi d the conc l us i on that A pp el l at e R ule 4( a)( 4)( A ), l i ke R u le 59(e), i s a cl ai m sprocessi ng rul e. A nd , i f on e accep t s that 4( a)( 4)( A ) i s a cl ai m spr oces s i ng rul e, i tfol l ow s t hata def ens e undert hatrul e “maybe w ai ved. ” B ow l es , 5 5 1 U .S

. a t 2 1 2 ; s ee al s o E ber har tv. U

ni t ed St at es , 5 4 6 U. S. 1 2 , 1 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ( d e s c r i b i ng how “c lai m -pro ce ssing rules .

. . m ay b e un alt era b le o n a p arty ’s appl i cat i on but can nonethel es s be for fei t ed i f the part yas s ert i ng t he rul e w ai ts too long t o r ai s e the poi nt

. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i ons o m itte d ))

. I n t he pr es entcas e, t he governm entdi d notobj ectt o the t i m el i n e s s o f

L i zar do’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t

. T hus , t he governm ent w ai ved i t s aff i r m at i ve defe ns e of u n tim e lin e ss a s to th e R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n in th e D istric t C o u rt. T he M aj or i t yr ecogni zes as m uch, M aj

. O p. at3; 12- 13, but nevert hel es s hol ds t hat“an unt i m el yR ul e 59( e) m ot i on, even one thatw as notobj ect ed t o i n t he di s t r i ctcour t , does nott ol l t he tim e to f ile a n a p p e a l u n d e r R u le 4 (a )( 4 ).” M a j. O p . a t 1 7

. T o t he ext ent t hat t he M aj or i t y ’ s opi ni on m ay be r ead a s i m pl y i ng t hata par t ycan ne verw ai ve an obj ect i on under A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ), I c a n n o t ag re e . T h e w a iv e r a v a ilab le t o t he gover nm ent under A ppel l at e R ul e 4(a ) ( 4) ( A ) coul d have b e e n e x e rc ise d h a d th e g o v e rn m e n t ch o se n n o t to a ss e rt its aff i r m at i ve def

ens e of unt i m el i nes s i n our C our t

. H ow ever , I do agr ee w i t h t he M aj or i t yi n i t s hol di ng thatw hats uffi ces as w ai verforpurp o s es of R ul e 59( e) does notnece s s ar i l ys uffi ce as a w ai verunderR ule 4 (a)(4)( A )

. I n otherw or ds , as theT he i dea that , i f an oppos i ng part ybr i efs t he m er i t s of an 5 app eal w i t ho ut rai si ng the af fi rm at i ve d efen se of u nti m el i ness, it sh o u ld b e treated as, i n ef fe ct, a sp ec ifi c a sserti o n o f w aive r, i s cons i s t entw i t h t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C i rcui t ’ s r eas oni ng i n W i l bur n v. R obi ns on , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 1 4 0 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n W i l bu rn , as in th e in sta n t ca se , the o p p o sin g p a rtyd id notchal l enge the t i m el i nes s of W i l bur n’ s pos t
- j udgm entm ot i on i n t he di s t r i ct cour t , w hi ch w as i n fac tunt i m el y . 480 F. 3d 1144. N ordi d t he oppos i ng par t yr ai s e the af fi r m ati ve def

ens e of 7 M a jo ritysta tes , ev e n w h e n a n o p p o sin g p a rtyf a il s to o b jec t to t he t i m eli nes s of a Rul e 59( e) m ot i on i n the di s t r i ctcour t , and t he di s t r i ctcour trul es on thatm ot i on on the m er i t s , t he oppos i ng p a rtyc a n s ti ll rais e th e iss u e o f tim e lin e ss w ith re g a rd to A p p e lla te R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A ).
H er e, t he governm entevi dent l y chos e nott o obj ectt o t he t i m el i nes s of Li zar do’ s m ot i on fo rr e c o n s i der at i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C ou rt , t ho ug h i t cou l d have r ai sed the 10-day t i m e bar th e n in pl ace underR ul e 59( e)

. G iven t he di ffe r entpurpos e of A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ), h o w e v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s f re e to as s ert the unt i m el i nes s of Li zar do’ s not i ce of appea l fr om t he D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is § 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n , an d it d id so in its br i efi ng af

ter w e i s s ued a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t y( “C O A ”) in th is c a s e . A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) s houl d notbe tr eat ed as w ai ved unl es s t her e has been a n expl i ci t as s ert i on of w ai ver , or t he w ai vi ng par t yhas br i efe d t he mer i t s of an a p p ea l w i t hout r ai s i ng t he af

firm at i ve def

ens e of unt i m el i nes s . H er e, t he 5u n ti m eli n ess w h en W il b u rn fil ed h is n o ti ce o f ap p e a l. I d. H ow ever , unl i ke the i ns t antcas e, the oppos i ng par t yi n W i l bu rn br i efe d t he mer i t s of t he appeal w i t hout addr es s i ng t he i s s ue of u n tim e lin e s s . Id

. at1147. I n anal y zi ng t he i s s ue of t ol l i ng, the W i l bur n cour tbegan b ye x p li c itl yn o tin g th a t “[ t]h e to lli n g lan g u a g e o f R u le 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( vi ) fi t s t he C our t ’ s des cr i pt i on of a c l ai m - pr oces s i ng rul e. ” Id

. a t 1 1 4 5

. T h e c o u rt th e n n o ted th a t th e o p p o sin g p a rty

“ did no t chall eng e t he t i m el i ness of W i l bu rn’ s app eal i n h is i ni t i al br i ef t o t hi s cour t

. . . [buti ] ns t ead, he addr es s ed onl ythe m er i t s of the appe al

. ” Id

. a t 1 1 4 7

. T h e c o u rt th e n h e ld th a t, “[a]l t ho ug h [ the op po si ng partyeven tuall y ] r ai sed the ti m el i ness i s s ue i n r es pons e t o ouror dert o t he part i es t o cons i dert he ef fec t of [t ol l i ng] on t hi s appea l

. . . the ar gum entcomes t oo l at e. ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , t he W il burn cour thel d t hat , “[b] eca us e [the o p p o si ng party ] fai l ed to t i m el yassertt he ti m el i ness defen se a f f o rd e d b yR u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A )( v i) [ i n i ts m e ri ts b ri e f in g ], ... W ilb u rn ’s [ p o st-ju d g m e n t m o tio n ] to h a v e to lled th e p e rio d to appea l

. . . . ” I

d. U nl i ke i n W

i l burn , her e, the governm entneverbr i efe d t he mer i t s of t he appeal w i t houtr ai s i ng i t s t i m el i nes s obj ect i on. T her efor e, t he governm enthas notw ai ved it s o bj ect i on under A p p ell ate R u le 4(a )(4)(A ).

8 g o v e rn m e n t n e v e r m a d e a n e x p licit a ss e rtio n o f w a iv e r, n o r d id i tb r i e f t h e me r i t s o f

t h e a p p e a l b e f

o r e we i s s u e d a CO A. R at her, t he gov ernm ent w as si m ply si l ent as to u n tim el i ness u n d e r A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ). W h ile s ilen c e is e n o u g h to e f f e c tu a te w a iv e r u n d e r R u le 5 9 (e ), th e re a re g o o d re a so n s to9 sa yit i s n o t en o u g h to e f f e c tu a te w a iv e r u n d e r A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A ).
F i rs t , t ho se tw o rul es ar e ai m ed at d if f e re nt obj ect i ves. T he t i m e l i m i t cont ai ned i n R ul e 59( e) es t abl i s hes a che ck on a d istric t c o u rt’s a b ili tyto re v isit it s f in a l ju d g m e n t. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r t h a t ru l e a r e m a d e o n a s p e c i f i c , c a s e - b ycas e bas i s . A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , on t he otherhand, goes t o t he manneri n w hi ch appe al s ar e pr oces s ed fr om al l d istr i ct cour t c a s e s . App e l l a t e Rul e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) i s t h u s a s y s t e mi c and o rg a n izati o n al rule. I ts go als are to en su re tha t app ea ls are t r eat ed i n an equi t abl e mannerand t o br i ng cert ai ntyt o t he a p p e a ls p ro c e ss . T h a t is so m e th in g b ro a d e r th a n th e a im o f R u le 5 9 (e ), w h ich a llo w s a lim ited o p p o rtu n ity f o r a d istric t co u rt to corr ecta s peci fi c err ori n a s peci fi c cas e. A ccor di ngl y , w ai ver u n d er A p p ell ate R u le 4(a )(4)(A ) i s ri g h tl ysu b ject t o m o re strin g e n t re q u ire m e n ts th a n w a iv e r u n d e r R u le 5 9 (e )

. T h a t a p a rtyw a iv e d b ysile n c e its d e f e n se to th e d istric t co u rt’s a b ili ty t o r econs i deri t s fi nal judgm ents houl d notdi ct at e the cons i der at i on w e gi ve t o w hethera part yhas t i m el yfi l ed an appea l i n ourcour t

. I ndeed, even an expl i ci t w ai ver of a 59( e) t i m el i nes s obj ect i on oughtnot b e s uffi ci entt o over come t he s y s t emi c and i ns t i tut i onal conce r ns t hat w arr antgi vi ng A p p e lla te R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A ) m o re ri g id a p p lic a tio n . S ec o n d , if w e w ere to ho ld th at an o p p o sin g p a rty ’s fai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he t i m el i nes s of a Rul e 59( e) m ot i on i n t he di s t r i ct cour t pr event s t hatpar t yfr om chal l engi ng on appea l the tim e lin e ss o f

th a t m o tio n f

o r p u rp o se s o f

to lli n g

– th e S ix th C ir cui t ’ s appr oach i n N at i onalE cologi cal

Foundat i on v. A l exande r , 496 F. 3d 466 ( 6th C i r . 2007) – w e mustas s um e theA s i m i l ardi s t i nct i on can be found i n t he i n f o r ma 6 pa up eris cont ext , 28 U

. S. C

. § 1915( e) , i n w hi ch th e co urthas author i t yt o di s m i s s fr i vol ous compl ai nt s befor e theyar e s erved on a def endant

. H er e t oo, t her e m ay be no oppos i ng par t y i n a situ a tio n w h e re th e C o u rt d is m is se s a c laim a n d th e n th e p a rty m o v e s f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . 10 e x iste n c e o f

a n o p p o sin g p a rty . T h e re a re , h o w e v e r, ce rta in c o n tex ts in w h ich n o o p p o sin g p a rtyis p re se n t. F o r e x a m p le, in the co n t extof habe as corpus and i n Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R efor m A ctcases, dis t ri ctcou rt s can an d frequ entl y d o d i sm i ss a pl ai nt i ff’ s orpet i t i oner ’ s i ni t i al pl eadi ng as fr i vol ous befor e that p le a d in g h a s b e e n s e rv e d o n th e g o v e rn m e n t. See 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2243; 42 U

. S. C

. § 199 7 e. In thos e ca s es , a pl ai nt i ff or pet i t i onerm ayfi l e an unt i m el y m ot i on forr econs i der at i on of the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al , and, even i f t he di s t r i ctcour trul es on t hatm ot i on on t he mer i t s , w e mays t i l l di s m i s s an appe al bas ed on t he unt i m el i nes s of the under l y i ng m ot i on. So, unl i ke 6 p lain tiff s in o th e r civ il c a se s, w h o w o u ld b e n e f it u n d e r th e S ix th C i r cui t ’ s appr oach f

r om an oppos i ng par t y ’ s w ai verof a t i m el i nes s obj ect i on, t he plai nt i ff orpet i t i onerw i t houtan oppos i ng par t y cannot have t he bene fi tof s uch a w ai ver . T hat appr oach thus cr eat es t w o cl as s es of def endant s : thos e w i t h an oppos i ng par tyw ho can gr antt hem t he bene fi tof w ai ver , and t hos e w i t houtanyoppor tuni t yforgr ace beca us e t her e i s no one to g ra n t it

. W e sh o u ld n o t as su m e th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d to cr eat e tw o cl as s es of appe l l ant s , thos e w i t h acc es s t o a pos s i bi l i t yof w ai verand thos e w i t hout

. P ri s oner s and habe as pet i t ion ers al r eadyfac e – byC ongr es s ’ s cons i der ed choi ce – car eful l ypl ace d s cr eens t o fi l t erthe cl ai m s theyw i sh to br i ng.11 W e s houl d b e l eeryof cr eat i ng new i m pedi m ent s fort hem on ourow n. T hi r d, I agr ee w i t h the M aj or i t yt hatan appr oach l i ke that t aken byt he Sixth Ci r cui ti n N at i onalE col ogi cal

Foundat i on w o u ld re su lt i n a n u n a c c e p ta b le u n c e rta in tyin th e a p p e llate pr oces s . T her e i s an ob v iou s uncert ai ntythatw oul d ens ue s houl d t he t i m el i nes s of an a ppeal be pr edi cat ed on the i di os yncr at i c mot i ons pr act i ce of l i t i gant s befor e the di s t r i ct cour t

. L ikelyfort hatr eas on, A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) s t at es t h a t , “ [ i ] f

a p a r t y t i m el

y fi l es ” anyof the mot i ons l i s t ed i n t he rule, “the ti m e to f

il e a n ap p ea l ru n s fo r a ll p arti es f rom the e n try o f th e o rde r disp o s in g o f th e last suc h rem ainin g m o ti o n [.]” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A sim p le te x tu a l ap p ro a c h , the n , w o u ld d icta te th a t, as a g e n e ra l m a tter, a R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n sh o u ld o n ly b e a b le to to ll th e tim e f o r f ilin g a n a p p e a l if it is “ tim e ly,” i .e ., fil ed w ith in th e t im ef

ram e dictated b y R u le 59 (e). U n less there is a sp ec ifi c a sserti o n o f w aive r ( s e e s u p r a not e 5) , part i es sh o u ld b e a b le to re ly o n th a t “ tim e ly ” c a v e a t in A p p e llate R u le 4( a) ( 4) ( A )

. T he rul e i t s el f thus l end s fu rthers uppor tt o the concl us i on t hata w ai veri n the R ul e 59( e) cont ex t d o es notI r ecogni ze thatan el ement o f uncer t ai ntyr es ul t s fr om 7 ourappr oach a s w ell

. A r eas on fr equent l ygi ven forfor ci ng li ti g an ts t o li v e w ith the p o sit ion s they too k in the d istri ct co u rt is th a t allo w in g a n e w p o s it io n to b e tak e n f o r th e f irst tim e in our C our t w or ks an unfa i r nes s t o t he part yfi l i ng the mot i on w ho p ro c e e d s in g o o d f

a ith re lian c e o n w h a t th e o p p o sin g p a rtyd id ordi d notdo i n t he di s t r i ct cour t

. H er e, w e have a ci r cumst ance w h ere b o th p arti es a n d th e D istri ct C o u rttr ea ted L izard o ’s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on as val i d, and addr es s ed i ton t he m e ri ts

. See A p p . at 3 2 (“ H a v in g c o n sid e re d th e p re m ise s, it is h e re b y O R D E R E D th a t L iza rd o ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n is deni ed. ”)

. A l l ow i ng a t i m el i nes s obj ect i on t o be r ai s ed now , for t he fi r s t t i m e on appe al , m eans that , even though t he part i es and t he C ourtpr o ceeded w i t h the mot i on forr econs i der at i on, d e c id in g it as if

it w e re tim e ly , an d e v e n th o u g h th e yw e re a ll f re e to d o th a t, L iza rd o sh o u ld n e v e rth e les s h a v e k n o w n to f ile a not i ce of appea l befor e t he m ot i on t o r econs i derw as deci ded. H ow ever , t hi s uncert ai nty r es ul t s fr om a part y ’ s – i n t hi s cas e, L iza rd o ’s – f

a il u re to f

ile a R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n in a tim e ly m anner , and, i m por t ant l y , thi s ki nd of unce r t ai ntyexi s t s on a cas e- by

- cas e bas i s . I f w e have a cl ear rul e, w e ar e l i kel yt o have few ercas es l i ke thi s one. 12 tra n sla te in to a w a iv e r i n th e A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) c o n tex t. 7
Fi nal l y , I al s o agr ee thatembra ci ng the N at i onal E col ogi cal

Foundat i on appr oach w oul d cr eat e an i nt ernal in c o n sis ten c yw ith in A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ). A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) lists s ix typ e s o f p o st-ju d g m e n t m o tio n s th a t ca n to ll th e tim e f

o r f ili n g a n a p p e a l, bu t o n lyo n e o f th e six isI d o c o n c e d e , h o w e v e r, th a t a R u le 6 0 m o tio n is, b yits 8 natur e, a di ffe r entt ype of pos t
- j udgm entr el i ef than the other m ot i ons l i s t ed i n A ppel l at e R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A )

. T he fi l i ng of a R ul e 60 mot i on i s not t i ed t o a l i t i gat i on event , butt o event s that o c c u rre d o u tsid e th e lit ig a tio n c o n tex t. T h u s, w h ile o th e r p o stju d g m e n t m o tio n s a re a c c o m p a n ied in th e F e d e ra l R u les o f C iv il Pr ocedur e bys peci fi ed t i m e l i m i t s that b egi n t o run w hen the d istric t co u rt e n ter s f

in a l ju d g m e n t o r g ra n ts o r d e n ies a d isc re te m o tio n , c e rta in typ e s o f m o tio n s u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) m u st s im p ly b e m a d e “ w ith in a re a so n a b le tim e ” a f ter th e e n tryo f

ju d g m e n t. F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 60( c) ( 1)

. A s a r es ul t , i tw as l i kel ynece s s aryfor th e d ra f ter s o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re to i ncorpor at e i nt o t he A ppel l at e R ul es a s epar ate t i m e per i od 13 a c c o m p a n ied b ya tim e lim it. S p e c if ica lly , A p p e llate R u le 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) ( v i ) p r o v i d e s t h a t a Ru l e 6 0 mo t i o n c a n t o l l th e t i me f o r f i l i n g a n a p p e a l , b u t o n l y i f i t i s “ f i l e d n o l a t e r t h a n 2 8 d a ys aft erthe j udgm enti s ent er ed. ” B as ed on thatl anguage , our C our t , nott he di s t r i ct cour t , i s r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hethert he R ul e 60 mot i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n t hat 28- day t i m e fr ame. O n t he ot herhand, w er e w e t o adoptthe Si xth C i r cui t ’s a p p roach, the t i m el i ness of the ot her fi ve p ost -j ud gm ent m oti on s – or atl east t he R ul e 59( e) m ot i ons – w oul d be det erm i ned bas ed on the pr ocee di ngs of t he di s t r i ct cour t

. T hus , an i nt ernal i ncons i s t ency w oul d r es ul tbeca us e a R ul e 60 mot i on can onl yt ol l the t i m e for fi l i n g an appea l i f thatm ot i on w as fi l ed w i t hi n 28 day s of the e n tryo f ju d g m e n t, w h e th e r o r n o t th e o p p o sin g p a rtyf a ils to obj ectt o unt i m el i n ess bef or e the di s t r i ctcour t , w her eas t he fai lur e t o obj ectt o a R ul e 59( e) m ot i on w oul d r endert hat m ot i on t i m el yfort he purpos es of t ol l i ng. 8w i t hi n w hi ch the fi l i ng of a Rul e 60(b) m ot i on w i l l t ol l t he per i od of fi l i ng a not i ce of appea l w i t h r esp ec tt o t he fi nal j udgm ent

. O t herw i s e, as a t echni cal m att er , a part ycoul d fi l e a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on y ear s aft erentr yof a f i nal j udgm ent , and then a rg u e u p o n d isp o sitio n o f th a t m o tio n th a t th e yh a d a r ig h t to a p p e a l th e o ri g in a l ju d g m e n t. T h e M a jo ritysa y s th a t a s tate m e n t th a t A p p e llate R u le 9 4(a) (4) (A ) i s a cl ai m s- processi ng rul e w ou l d b e dict a, becau se h e re , the G o v e rn m e n t ra ise d th e iss u e o f tim e lin e ss u n d e r R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ). M a

j. O p . at1 8 9 n .9 . P e rh a p s th is is so , if th e b a sis forthe M aj or i t y ’ s hol di ng i s t hatt he G overnm entm ade a pr oper tim e lin e s s o b

je c tio n u n d e r A p p e lla te R u le 4(a )(4)(A ). H o w ev er, I w ri te sep ara tel yto m ak e c lear tha t, in m yv iew , th e re are ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch s uch an obj ect i on coul d i n fac tbe w ai ved. I w ri te to ens ur e thatw e do notl eave t he i m pr es s i on th at A p p ell ate R u le 4(a )(4)(A ) i s jurisdicti o n al, w h ich o n e m i ght under s t and fr om t he M aj or i t y ’ s opi ni on. Fur t her , w hi l e t he M aj or i t y r ecogni zes thati t s appr oach dep art s fr om t he S i xth C i rcui t ’s app roach, t he M aj ori t yal so depart s fr om the appr oache s embra ced byt he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C i r cui ti n W

i l bu rn , 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 0 , a n d th e E ig h th 14 I n s um , I w o u ld hol d thatan unt i m el ym ot i on for rec o n side rati o n – ev en w h en n o t objected to in the d istri ct co u rt

– d o e s n o t to ll th e tim e f o r f il in g a n a p p e a l u n d e r A p p e llate R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , unl es s t her e has been a cl earas s ert i o n of w a iv e r, eith e r b ya n e x p licit sta tem e n t o f w a iv e r o r b ym e rits b rie f in g th a t f a ils to a d d re ss th e iss u e o f tim e lin e ss . A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) is a c la im s-p ro c e ss in g ru le, b u t, i n th is 9C i r cui ti n Di l l v . Gen e r a l Amer i c a n Li f e I n s u r a n c e C o. , 525 F

. 3 d 6 1 2 (8 th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). W h il e tho se tw o d ec isi o n s are cert ai nl ydi s t i ngui s habl e ( forr eas ons t hatneed notbe addr es s ed h e r e ) , t h e y a r e r i g h t l y e x p l i c i t a b o u t Ap p e l l a t e Ru l e 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) b e in g a c laim s-p ro c e ss in g ru le, an d th e y e m b ra c e th e p rin c ip le th a t a d e f e n se u n d e r A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) m a ya c c o rd in g ly be w ai ved. See W

i l bu rn , 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 6 (sta tin g th a t,

“ [ b ]e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e tim e lim it o f R u le 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) ( vi ) cons t i tut es a cl ai m - pr oces s i ng rule, t he i s s ue b e c o m e s w h e th e r [ th e o p p o sin g p a rty ] f o rf e ited th e rig h t to a ss e rt it); D ill , 525 F. 3d at618- 19 ( “[B]e caus e th e rul es [ c o n tain e d in A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A )] a re n o n ju risd ictio n a l, t hes e t i m el i nes s r equi r ement s m ay be for fei t ed i f t hey are not tim e lyra ise d . T h e r e f

o re , w e m u st d e c id e w h e th e r D ill tim e ly ra ise d th e u n tim e lin e ss o f

.. . [th e o p p o s in g p a rty ’s p o stjud g m en t ] m ot i on. I f he di d, he i s as s ur ed r el i ef .

. . [buti f he] w ai t [ed] t oo l ong t o r aise t he poi nt

. . . the def ens e w as fo rfe it ed

. ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted) (f ifth alt era ti o n in o ri g inal). I agr ee w i t h thos e court s ’ expl i ci t d i s cus s i ons about A p p e llate R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A ) a s a c laim s-p ro c e ss in g ru le, a n d th e ir r e c o g n i t i o n t h a twa i v e ri s i n d e e d p o s s i b l e , a n d I b e l i e v e we s houl d cl ear l yadoptt hatpos i t i on.

15 in sta n c e , a tim e lin e ss d e f e n se u n d e r th a t cla im s-p ro c e ss in g ru le w a s n o t w a iv e d . F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf u lly c o n c u r.L i z a r d o ’ s m o t i o n f o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n r a i s e d t h e s a me 10 under l y i ng i s s ue as hi s § 2255 pet i t i on, namel y , t hathi s couns el de p r i v e d h i m o f t h e r i g h t t o t e s t i f y . Howev e r , t h e s t a n dar d of 16 I I . L i zardo’ s A ppeal f rom t he D i s t ri ct C ourt ’ s D eni al of hi s M ot i on f

or R econs i derat i on L izard o ap p ea led fro m b o th the D istri ct C o u rt ’s Jan u ary 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 d en ial o f h is § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n a n d th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s M arch 17 , 20 08 den i al of h i s R ule 59(e) m oti on . W e m ust t her efor e as k w hetherL i zar do’ s appea l of hi s m ot i on for rec o n side rati o n is ti m ely if m ea su red fro m the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of thatm ot i on, s epar at e and apar tfr om t ol l i ng under A p p e lla te R u le 4 (a )( 4 )( A ).
T he M aj ority h olds, as i tm ust , t hat R ule 59(e) i s a cl ai m s - pr oces s i ng rul e. I tther efor e conc l udes that“w e ca n no l ongert r eatR ul e 59( e) as a j ur i s di ct i onal rule, norvi ew L iz a rd o ’s u n tim e ly m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n a s a n u llity.” M aj

. O p. at10. I f w e ca nnotvi ew L i zar do’ s m ot i on for rec o n side rati o n as a n u ll ity(i

. e., w e m u st v iew itas leg it im ate), w e al s o cannotvi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of thatm ot i on forr econs i der at ion as a nul l i t y . I n otherw or ds , the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deni al o f L i zar do’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i s an or derfr om w hi ch an a ppeal can be t aken.
B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of L i zar do’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i s a fi nal o r der , L i zar do’ s appea l as m eas ur ed fr om t hatdenial i s t i m el y , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hos e i s s ues he r ai s ed i n hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. 10r evi ew fordeni al of a mo ti o n fo rr econs i der at i on i s di ffe r ent t han t hat w hi ch w oul d appl yt o an appe al fr om t he deni al of the § 2255 pet i t i on i t s el f. 17 T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed Li zar do’ s R ule 5 9 (e) m ot i on on M a rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 a n d L iza rd o f iled h is pr o s e not i ce of

appea l on A pr i l 7, 2008, w i t hi n the 60- day ti m e p er i od pr es cr i bed by A p p e lla te R u le 4

. T h e M a jo rityd o e s n o t ad d re ss th is iss u e e x p licitly , b u t in a footnot e s t at es t hat“[t ] he ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t ydi d not c e rtify th e iss u e o f

w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rro n e o u sly deni ed Li zar do’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on and Li zar do fai l ed t o r ai se that issue on appea l

. ” M aj

. O p. at4- 5 n. 5. T her efor e, s ay s t he M aj or i t y , “w e nee d notaddr es s i t

. ” I d. Perhaps t hat footnot e ca n be read t o m ean thatL i zar do’ s appea l fr om t he deni al o f h i s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on i s t i m el ybutthatthe i s s ue of w hether t he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed i n deny i ng t hatm ot i on does notfal l w i t hi n t he s cope of ourC O A

. I f s o, I di s agr ee. W e g ra n ted th e C O A w ith re g a rd to th re e s p e c if ic ques t i ons : ( 1) “w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the corr ect s t andar d i n eval uat ing L i zar do’ s cl ai m t hatt r i al couns el d e p r i v e d h i m o f

h i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t t o t e s t i f yo n h i s o wn behal f”; ( 2) “w hethe r Li zar do’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on aff ect ed the t i m e forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l ”; and, ( 3) “w hether L i zar do’ s not i ce of

appea l w as t i m el yfil ed underthe pr i s on m ai l bo x rule. ” A pp . at 13

. T he second and t hir d of th ose ques t i ons can and shoul d be r ead t o encompas s t he ques t i on of w hethe r L i zar do’ s appea l , as m eas ur ed fr om hi s m ot i on forL i zardo w as pro se w hen he f i l ed hi s s uppl ement al 11 m emora ndum i n su p p o r tof hi s § 2255 pet i t i on, w hen he f i l ed hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on, and w hen he fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l

. H e w as , how ever , couns el ed i n hi s br i efi ng fol l ow i ng o u r i s s u a n c e o f

th e C O A

. 18 r econs i der at i on, i s t i m el y . Par ti cul ar l yi n t he ca s e of a pro se appea l s uch as t hi s , w e s houl d cons t rue t he C O A to p rotec t 11 L iz a rd o ’s a p p e lla te ri g h ts

. C f

. G hana v. H

ol l and , 226 F. 3d 175, 180 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( di s cus s i ng our w i l l i ngnes s t o “cons t rue [a l i t i gant ’ s ] pr o s e not i ce of appea l l i ber al l y t o coveruns peci fi ed pr i oror der s t hatar e r el at ed t o the speci fi ed or derthatw as ap p ea led f

rom ” (intern al qu o tat ion s an d alt era ti o n s o m itted ))

. M or eover, L i zar do di d ar gue i n hi s appel l at e br i ef that t he D ist ri ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on for re c o n s i d e ra tio n . See A ppel l ant ’ s O p. B r . at7- 8 ( “Fur t her , t he D i s t ri ct C our terr ed i n concl udi ng t hat[Li zar do’ s ] decl ar at i on in su p p o rt o f

h is m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n f

iled in re sp o n se to t he D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s O r derdeny i ng [Li zar do’ s ] § 2255 pet i t i on d id n o t al lege su ff

ici en t prejud ice u n d er Str i ckland [] ... .” ). In fa ct, a sec ti o n o f h is brief is de v o ted to w h ythe D istri ct C o u rt a lle g e d ly er re d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . I w oul d t her efor e cons t rue the C O A t o encompas s t he issue o f w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rterr e d in d en y ing L izard o ’s m o tio n fo r reco n side rati o n , an d thu s w o u ld sa ythat L izard o ’s appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of hi s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on i s t i m el y . Forthatr eas on, I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent t o t he ext entt hatt he M aj or i t yho lds thatw e do nothave19 juri sd ict ion o v er L izard o ’s ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.