Opinion ID: 796325
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Parties' Supplemental Submissions

Text: 5 Moreno-Rivera argues in his supplemental submission that he is entitled to the remand contemplated by Fuller. Moreno-Rivera has communicated to his new appellate counsel that he always wanted to appeal but did not do so due to `lack of timely information,' and lack of `financial resources.' Aug. 31, 2006 Decl. of Laurie S. Hershey (Hershey Decl.) ¶ 4. Moreover, according to Moreno-Rivera's new appellate counsel, the attorney who represented Moreno-Rivera before the District Court has refused to explain why he never filed a notice of appeal on Moreno-Rivera's behalf. Id. ¶ 6. Moreno-Rivera contends that, in the circumstances, he is entitled to a remand to the District Court with instructions to vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment from which a timely appeal may be taken. 6 The Government's supplemental submission notes that while Fuller addressed a situation in which all parties agreed that the defendant instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal but the attorney failed to do so, see Fuller, 332 F.3d at 64, it is not clear from Moreno-Rivera's supplemental submissions that he ever gave his attorney instructions to file a notice of appeal on his behalf. The Government also points out that Moreno-Rivera's lack of timely information rationale for failing to file a timely appeal is undermined by the transcript of Moreno-Rivera's sentencing hearing, in which Judge Garaufis explicitly warned Moreno-Rivera that he had only an extremely limited time to appeal. Tr. of Sentencing Hr'g 13.