Opinion ID: 739963
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Purported Authorization of Appeal from the 1992 Judgment

Text: 13 To the extent that the district court's 1996 Order purported to grant Hooper permission to appeal the 1992 Judgment, that order was beyond the court's authority. Several well-established principles lead to this conclusion. 14 First, although the district court is empowered to extend the time for appeal from a judgment of conviction, that power is to be exercised only upon a showing of excusable neglect. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b); see also Fed.R.App.P. 26(b) (court of appeals has no power to extend time for appeal). Second, after a district court judgment has been affirmed on appeal, the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the district court to proceed in accordance with that judgment. See generally United States v. Fernandez, 506 F.2d 1200, 1202 (2d Cir.1974) ( 'Where a case has been decided by an appellate court and remanded, the court to which it is remanded must proceed in accordance with the mandate and such law of the case as was established by the appellate court.'  (quoting 1B Moore's Federal Practice p 0.404, at 571 (2d ed.1974) (footnotes omitted))); In re Ivan F. Boesky Securities Litigation, 957 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir.1992) (Under the doctrine of law of the case, a district court generally may not deviate from a mandate issued by an appellate court....); Carroll v. Blinken, 42 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir.1994) (same). Indeed, because the district court has no discretion in carrying out the mandate, the appellate court retains the authority to determine whether the terms of the mandate have been scrupulously and fully carried out. In re Ivan F. Boesky Securities Litigation, 957 F.2d at 69 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Carroll v. Blinken, 42 F.3d at 126; Ginett v. Computer Task Group, Inc., 11 F.3d 359, 360 (2d Cir.1993). Finally, a § 2255 petition seeking relief from a judgment of conviction may not be used to relitigate questions that were raised and considered on appeal. See generally Giacalone v. United States, 739 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1984); Castellana v. United States, 378 F.2d 231, 233 (2d Cir.1967). 15 In the present matter, the notice of appeal from the 1992 Judgment was untimely; the district court found that the failure to file a timely notice was inexcusable; and that ruling was affirmed on appeal. Under the above principles, therefore, the district court had no authority either to reopen the issue of excusable neglect or to allow Hooper to appeal from the 1992 Judgment. There being no timely appeal from the 1992 Judgment, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter as an appeal from that judgment. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 224, 80 S.Ct. 282, 285-86, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960) (construing predecessor to Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)); United States v. Koziel, 954 F.2d 831, 833 (2d Cir.1992).