Court Opinion

ID: 9411791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 21:01:16.618781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:13.909086
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14140   Document: 15-1    Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-14140
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       METAL CONVERSION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
                                                           Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
       Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
       Administration (PHMSA),

                                                         Respondent.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14140     Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 22-14140

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                      U.S. Department of Transportation
                          Agency No. 18-0086-HMI-SW
                           ____________________

       Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely. Metal
       Conversion Technologies, LLC (“MCT”) contends that it did not
       receive notice of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
       Administration’s (“PHMSA”) July 25, 2022, decision assessing a
       civil penalty against it until October 18, 2022. However, PHMSA
       sent a copy of the decision by certified mail to Deitra Crawley,
       MCT’s legal counsel at the time the decision was issued, on August
       2, 2022. According to the regulations governing PHMSA proceed-
       ings, MCT received notice of the decision on that date. See 49
       C.F.R. § 105.35(a). Therefore, PHMSA’s decision became final on
       August 2, 2022, and MCT’s petition for review was due by October
       3, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C); 49 U.S.C. §§ 5123(b),
       5127(a). Thus, MCT’s petition for review, filed on December 15,
       2022, was untimely.
             While MCT argues that the 60-day filing deadline contained
       in 49 U.S.C. § 5127(a) is not jurisdictional and, thus, subject to
       equitable tolling, even claims-processing rules are not subject to
       equitable tolling if the text of the rule precludes flexibility. See
       Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 139 S. Ct. 710, 714-15 (2019)
USCA11 Case: 22-14140     Document: 15-1     Date Filed: 07/27/2023   Page: 3 of 3

       22-14140              Opinion of the Court                       3

       (discussing how the time limitation in Federal Rule of Civil
       Procedure 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling based on the
       language in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b)(1)).
       Moreover, an extension of the 60-day deadline that applies here is
       not “specifically authorized by law.” See Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2).