Court Opinion

ID: 55045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 01:39:23+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:27.877015
License: Public Domain

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

             IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            FILED
                       ------------------------------------------- U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                     ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                    No. 06-16173                        AUGUST 17, 2007
                              Non-Argument Calendar                   THOMAS K. KAHN
                      --------------------------------------------         CLERK

                                D.C. Docket Nos.
                                05-00145-CV-CB
                                02-00086-CR-CB

TRUMAN RODNEY DANIEL,

                                                       Petitioner-Appellant,

                                        versus

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA,

                                                       Respondent-Appellee.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------
                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Alabama
            ----------------------------------------------------------------

                                (August 17, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
      Truman Rodney Daniel, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, appeals the

denial of his motion to reopen the time for filing a notice of appeal of his

previously denied 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. No reversible

error has been shown; we affirm.

      Here, the district court concluded that, pursuant to the requirements of

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), it could not reopen the time to appeal

in this case. “A district court’s interpretation of federal procedural rules is subject

to de novo review.” Vencor Hosps., Inc. v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

279 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002).

      A district court may reopen the time to file an appeal only if certain

conditions are satisfied, including that “the motion [to reopen] is filed within 180

days after the judgment or order is entered or within 7 days after the moving party

receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry,

whichever is earlier.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6)(B) (emphasis added); see also Vencor

Hosps., 279 F.3d at 1310 (“Under the plain meaning of Rule 4(a)(6), district courts

are authorized to reopen the time for filing an appeal based on lack of notice solely

within 180 days of the judgment or order.”).

      In this case, the judgment denying Daniel’s section 2255 motion was

entered on 9 January 2006. Daniel asserts that he received notice of the district

                                           2
court’s judgment on 29 August 2006 and that he submitted his motion to reopen

within seven days of that date. But because Daniel did not file his motion to

reopen by 10 July 2006 -- which was 180 days after entry of the 9 January 2006

judgment and was the earlier of the limits provided in Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6)(B) --

the district court properly denied his motion to reopen. See Fed.R.App.P.

4(a)(6)(B); Fed.R.App.P. 26(a)(3) (explaining date calculation when last day of

period falls on a weekend).

      We affirm the district court’s denial of Daniel’s motion to reopen the time

for filing an appeal.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3