Opinion ID: 3010522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Timeliness of the Appeals

Text: We begin our examination of the merits of this appeal with the question whether there was a timely appeal filed by either appellant. We conclude that Shareholders' first appeal was untimely but that their second appeal supported appellate jurisdiction in the district court. We reject, however, Sheridan's efforts to conjure up a novel mechanism for fee review.
Shareholders filed their first Notice of Appeal on December 27, 1993. This appeal was untimely, an issue of law that we have reviewed de novo. See In re Saunders, 31 F.3d 767, Section 330(a) provides in part: “[a]fter notice . . . and a hearing . . ., the court may award . . . reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services . . ..” 13