Opinion ID: 242210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of Pursuit of Appeals.

Text: 8 The rules allowed Blunt three days to file a statement that the stenographic transcript had been ordered from the reporter, 10 and forty days to file the record. 11 But for more than two years, he did nothing. The Government says he thereby abandoned his appeals. 12 We conclude, instead, (1) that Blunt made timely efforts to pursue his appeals; and (2) that, if not, delay was the result of excusable neglect, Rule 45(b) (2), Fed.R.Crim.P., and pursuit of the appeals must be allowed in the interests of justice. 9 Blunt, a pauper, could not himself order a transcript. But with the filing of his notice he asked the District Court for a transcript at Government expense. He had no occasion to ask us for a transcript until the District Court had effectively denied his request. The District Court's denial of his request was not entered until November 2, 1953, when Blunt was already in jail and no longer had counsel. 10 Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: 11 Immediately upon the entry of an order made on a written motion subsequent to arraignment the clerk shall mail to each party affected thereby a notice thereof and shall make a note in the docket of the mailing. 12 Concerning the similar provision in the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court said in Hill v. Hawes, 1944, 320 U.S. 520, 523, 64 S.Ct. 334, 336, 88 L.Ed. 283. 13 It is true that Rule 77(d) does not purport to attach any consequence to the failure of the clerk to give the prescribed notice; but we can think of no reason for requiring the notice if counsel in the cause are not entitled to rely upon the requirement that it be given. 13 14 Since no notice was sent to Blunt or to anyone on his behalf, the time to take the next step in his appeals did not begin to run until March 1956, when counsel we appointed acquired actual notice, from the District Court files, of the order of November 2, 1953. Lohman v. United States, 6 Cir., 1956, 237 F.2d 645, and cases there cited. 14 15 We need not consider whether actual notice of the order of November 2, 1953, would have dispensed with the requirement of formal notice of its entry on the docket, 15 for there is no showing that Blunt had actual notice. The transcript shows that on October 30, 1953, when Blunt was sentenced and the application for a transcript was filed, the judge said, in the presence of Blunt and his counsel: 16 I will allow you to file a notice of appeal without prepayment of cost, but I will not permit the matter to go further in forma pauperis without a further showing. 16 17 But the order was not entered by the clerk until November 2, 1953, and it does not appear that the judge signed it earlier. The Government would have us assume that he signed it on October 30 when he stated what he would do. We see no basis for this assumption. 17