Legal Document

502 U.S. 1 112 S.Ct. 4 116 L.Ed.2d UNITED STATESv.Alejandro Garcia IBARRA. No. 90-1713. Oct. 15, 1991. Page 2 PER CURIAM. The United States District Court for the of Wyoming ordered that certain evidence which Government proposed to use in respondent's pending criminal trial be suppressed. appealed order Appeals Tenth Circuit, but court dismissed Government's appeal. It held 30-day period file an appeal began run on date Court's original suppression order, rather than denied motion reconsideration. 920 F.2d 702 (1990). We grant petition certiorari and vacate judgment Appeals. * Respondent was indicted possession cocaine with intent distribute. circumstances leading indictment are largely uncontested. Law enforcement officers stopped car a suspected operating violation. questioned respondent asked permission search car. granted request brief conducted no identified or seized. However, noting neither nor his passenger had valid operator's license, impounded transported Western Union office. then went towing service lot searched second time. They found trunk. filed pretrial suppress search. Among theories originally contested been pursuant continuing consent. before ruled motion, abandoned consent theory papers court, citing lack legal support its position. On November 1989, after evidentiary hearing, noted abandonment theory. 725 F.Supp. 1195, 1200 (Wyo.1989). December 13, "Motion Reconsideration Suppression Order." sole basis reassertion January 3, 1990, motion. noticed 30, less 30 days denial reconsideration 76 initial order. 3 A divided panel Circuit as untimely, holding reconsider did not "toll" period1 order.2 In course opinion, rejected argument this decisions v. Healy, 376 75, 84 553, 11 527 (1964), Dieter, 429 6, 97 18, 50 8 (1976) (per curiam ), controlled decision. supra, we said: "The question, therefore, is simply whether case timely rehearing by within permissible time renders final purposes until disposes petition—in other words such ..... begins from entry rehearing." U.S., at 77-78, S.Ct., 554-556. 5 answered question saying under "well-established rule civil cases," id., 78, 555, further observing consistent practice treat petitions having same effect cases. Id., 78-79, 555-556. More 12 years later, decided supra curium). There, too, untimely district court's dismissing indictment. Although notice denying Set Aside Order Dismissal," it dismissal itself. our decision governed only cases claimed errors law, whereas Dieter mistake inadvertence. 6 vacated remanded Appeals, "misconceived Healy. there alike has rendering nonfinal long pending." 8, 19. pointed out presumed benefits courts given opportunity correct their own alleged errors, allowing them do so prevents unnecessary burdens being placed appeals. concluded "the Appeals' law/fact distinction—assuming distinction can clearly drawn these purposes—finds Healy." Ibid. 7 present nonetheless determined affected reconsider. instead created special motions seek previously disavowed because suspending upon does goals described Dieter. Because serve permit matters initially overlooked, thought delaying appellate process resolution unlikely contribute judicial efficiency. F.2d, 706. also government position conceded during litigation viewed disfavor when tribunal. (citing Smith, 781 184 (CA10 1986)). II think misread supra. first established case, like otherwise decides rehearing. effort carve exceptions general assert error law. different exception laid down Healy must likewise rejected. 9 may based grounds apt fare well either But if merits were allowed play part deciding appealed, difficult see why similar analysis should undertaken all result would be, dissenting judge below out, "graf[t] inquiry onto what bright-line jurisdictional inquiry." 710 (Baldock, J., dissenting). 10 Undoubtedly some totally lacking merit virtues realized period. If possible pick advance, better litigants pursuing made go sooner, fruitless way court. advance have requisite degree merit, not. Given this, far subsumed one rule—the Without clear required guess peril commences run. Prudent attorneys encouraged notices orders Court, even though latter considering Cf. Ladson, 774 436, 438-439, n. (CA11 1985). Less prudent find themselves litigating appeals sufficient potential justify litigant's delay review. Neither development desirable. opinion read hold urge reconsideration, "true" extend method analysis, break into subcategories more category "motions reconsideration" previous opinions. Here, sought " 'reconsider [a] case' 'alteration rights adjudicated.' 8-9, 19-20 (quoting Department Banking Pink, 317 264, 266, 63 233, 234, 87 L.Ed. 254 (1942)). That Dieter.3 granted, proceed forma pauperis vacated, proceedings. 13 ordered. Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 4(b) provides, inter alia: "When authorized statute, shall (i) (ii) any defendant." Statutory authorization 18 U.S.C. § 3731: "An lie [sic ] suppressing excluding evidence. taken thirty decision, rendered diligently prosecuted." discusses issue matter "tolled" that, assumption, believe tolling. Principles equitable tolling usually dictate time-bar suspended again later event, remaining clock calculated subtracting full limitations whatever ran stopped. See Cada Baxter Healthcare Corp., 446 (CA7 1990) (discussing principles tolling). Thus, example, 20 days, tolled appeal, leave most once decided. would-be appellants entitled 7-8, 18-19, ) ("[T]he limitation runs . itself"). Two concerns animate Circuit's inapposite case. First, assertion consensual done bad-faith. thus occasion consider instances bad faith might require result. 80, 4, 556, (1964). Second, single filed. appropriate refuse successive submitted. Marsh, 700 1322 1983).

Classification Label: 0