Document: 429 U.S. 6 97 S.Ct. 18 50 L.Ed.2d 8 UNITED STATESv.Frank Daniel DIETER. No. 75-1547. Oct. 12, 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 The respondent was indicted in early 1973 for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) after a search at permanent immigration traffic checkpoint New Mexico of vehicle which he passenger had turned up substantial quantity marihuana. His motion to suppress the marihuana initially denied by District Court. Thereafter, this Court ruled Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 266, 93 2535, 37 596 (1973), that warrantless roving patrol conducted without probable cause on road removed from border, violated Fourth Amendment. Appeals Tenth Circuit subsequently States King, 485 F.2d 353 (10 Cir. 1973), and Maddox, 361 should be applied retroactively.1 then reconsidered respondent's suppress, October 4, 1974, dismissed indictment. 2 On 16, Government filed "Motion Set Aside (the) Order Dismissal" ground facts case were materially different those "the dismissing entered through inadvertence." November 6, it "no authority or jurisdiction" set aside order. 7, notice appeal. 3 (1) appeal, holding untimely because appeal not been until 34 days entry 4 order hence fell outside 30-day limitation period an indictment.2 appellate court held final purposes notwithstanding Government's 16 In denying petition rehearing suggestion en banc, recognized Healy, 376 75, 84 553, 11 527 (1964), decided time when indictment taken directly rather than appeals, we runs denial timely rehearing, date itself. reasoned, however, Healy did control post-dismissal there involved "was directed squarely alleged error law committed trial court," whereas "to grounds mistake inadvertence entirely species pleading . ." App. Pet. Cert. 4A. (2) misconceived basis our decision Healy. We noted consistent practice civil criminal cases alike has treat petitions as rendering original judgment nonfinal long is pending. U.S., 78-79, S.Ct., 555-56.3 To have otherwise might prolonged litigation unnecessarily burdened Court, since plenary consideration issue ordinarily requires more required disposition rehearing. Id., 80, 556. fact appeals are now routed courts does affect wisdom giving district opportunity promptly correct their own errors, must likewise wary imposing added unnecessary burdens appeals. These considerations fully apply whether presented termed one law, Appeals' law/fact distinction assuming such can clearly drawn these finds no support It true captioned "petition rehearing," but doubt purpose effect precisely that, asking "reconsider (a) question case" "alteration rights adjudicated." Department Banking Pink, 317 264, 63 233, 234, 87 L.Ed. 254 (1942). 5 leave proceed forma pauperis certiorari granted, vacated, remanded further proceedings. so ordered. That view later repudiated Peltier, 422 531, 95 2313, 45 374 (1975). Title 3731 provides pertinent part "(i)n shall lie decision, judgment, information any counts," "(t)he all within thirty rendered .." Federal Rule Proc. 4(b) part: "When government authorized statute, 30 appealed from. A meaning subdivision docket." concern with lack statute rule expressly authorizing treatment suspending ignores having grounded express authorization (which similarly lacking ), "traditional virtually unquestioned practice." 79,

Category: 0