Opinion ID: 2750343
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: This court must assure itself of its jurisdiction. United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 153 (5th Cir. 1991). A timely notice of appeal is not jurisdictional but is a prerequisite to this court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Id. A defendant wishing to appeal must file his notice with the district clerk within 14 days after the entry of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. FED. R. APP. P. 3(a)(1), 4(b)(1)(A)(i). A notice of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Henneberger timely filed his appeal to the district court’s July judgment. He did not, though, file a new notice of appeal after the court entered the 3 Case: 13-40758 Document: 00512832229 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 No. 13-40758 amended August judgment. The government argues that the notice of appeal fails to satisfy Rule 3(c)(1)(B) because the operative August judgment has never been identified as the subject of Henneberger’s appeal. In determining whether Henneberger’s notice of appeal is effective to appeal the August judgment, we consider the following rule, which provides that the filing of a Rule 35(a) motion does not “affect the validity of a notice of appeal” from an earlier judgment: The filing of a notice of appeal under this Rule 4(b) does not divest a district court of jurisdiction to correct a sentence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), nor does the filing of a motion under 35(a) affect the validity of a notice of appeal filed before entry of the order disposing of the motion. The filing of a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a) does not suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(5). This rule is clear about some points. For example, the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion despite the prior notice of appeal. Further, a Rule 35(a) motion does not affect a notice of appeal that was filed before the order “disposing of the motion” is entered. Indeed, the time to file a notice of appeal from the judgment continues to run despite the filing of a Rule 35(a) motion. What is less clear is whether a prior-filed notice of appeal can suffice to appeal from a sentence corrected pursuant to Rule 35(a). If the sentence correction is unsatisfactory to the defendant, the time to appeal the correction “would begin to run when the court enters a new judgment reflecting the corrected sentence.” FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(5) advisory committee’s note (2002 Amendment). Not directly indicated by the rule is whether, if the arguments about the sentence are unaffected by the correction, a new notice of appeal identifying the now-operative judgment containing the corrected sentence must be filed. 4 Case: 13-40758 Document: 00512832229 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 No. 13-40758 Some clarification comes from the advisory committee notes to Rule 4. They state that “a notice of appeal should not be affected by the filing of a Rule 35(c) [now Rule 35(a)] motion or by correction of a sentence under Rule 35(c).” FED. R. APP. P. 4 advisory committee’s note (1993 Amendment). If a notice “should not be affected” by the correction of a sentence, then whatever the prior notice accomplished would still be accomplished. Henneberger’s first notice validly appealed certain questions concerning his sentence to this court. The sentence correction did not affect the sentencing arguments being made on appeal, although the judgment expressing the sentence was now a later one. Were we to agree with Henneberger, though, the sentence we would need to vacate is not the one identified in his notice of appeal. Such technical defects at worst fall into the category of “a mistake in designating a judgment appealed from[, which] should not bar an appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake.” Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1991) (interpreting FED. R. APP. P 3(c)(1)(B)). Therefore, regardless of whether Henneberger’s notice of appeal was defective by failing to designate the correct judgment, Henneberger’s intent to appeal his sentence was clear, and the government has fully briefed the correct sentencing issue.