UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ONE REMINGTON 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN, SERIAL NO. 322336V, WITH A BARREL LENGTH OF 13 INCHES AND AN OVERALL LENGTH OF 24% INCHES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, MARVIN CLARK BELL, CLAIMANT-APPELLEE

11th Cir. | 1983-07-22
No. 82-8546
Before TJOFLAT, FAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
709 F.2d 1468 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1983) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on untimely post-trial motions, rendering the subsequent notice of appeal invalid.

Facts & Procedural History

The government filed untimely motions for relief from judgment and reconsideration after the trial court granted summary judgment for the claimant. Th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Forfeiture Action Federal Rule Of Appellate Procedure 4(A)(4) Timeliness Of Notice Of Appeal Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 59(E)

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Forfeiture Action cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

This forfeiture action was brought by the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5782. Claimant Bell moved for summary judgment as did the government. On January 19, 1982, the trial court entered an Order outlining the issues involved and its reasons for granting the summary judgment requested by Bell and denying that requested by the government. Judgment was duly entered on January 19, 1982.

On March 5, 1982, the government filed what it called a “Motion for Relief from Judgment and for Reconsideration” alleging that it was pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The argument by the government centered on its contention that the trial court had misinterpreted the statutes involved. Clearly the motion was one covered by the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Under Rule 59(e) such a motion must be filed “not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.”

On June 25, 1982, the trial court entered another Order discussing the government’s request for reconsideration and reaffirming its earlier interpretations of the statutes. In the last paragraph thereof the trial court granted the request for reconsideration, vacated the judgment of January 19, 1982, granted Bell’s motion for summary judgment, denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and directed that a new judgment be entered accordingly. This was done. Because the government’s motion was untimely and this action was taken more than 10 days after judgment, the trial court was without jurisdiction. F.R.Civ.P. 59(d).

On July 21, 1982, the government filed another untimely request for reconsideration from the void Order of June 25. Without waiting for a ruling, the government filed its first and only notice of appeal on August 20, 1982.

Rule 4(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, requires a notice of appeal to be filed with the clerk of the district court within 60 days of judgment when the United States is a party. The filing of a timely notice of appeal is absolutely essential to give this court jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Hunt Oil Co., 643 F. 2d 1042 (5th Cir.1981).

Because the first post trial motion was untimely and the period of time afforded a trial court to rule sua sponte had expired and since no timely request for an extension of time to appeal was made, the notice of appeal fails to meet the requirements of F.R.App.P. 4(a). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Wooden v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. Sys. OF Ga., 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001)
    …relieve each plaintiff of his obligation to file a timely notice of appeal with respect to his own particular claim; the fact that the notice may be timely for some other plaintiff is immaterial. See United States v. One Remington 12 Gauge Shotgun, 709 F. 2d 1468, 1469 (11th Cir.1988) (dismissing appeal where party failed to file timely notice because “[t]he filing of a timely notice of appeal is essential to give this court jurisdiction”); Reynolds v. Hunt Oil Co., 643 F. 2d 1042, 1042 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981…
  • Reverend W. Eugene Scott v. Evelle J. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir. 1984)
    …on for reconsideration of denial of Rule 60(b) relief). The district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Scott’s motion for reconsideration. Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. at 560 n. 7; United States v. One Remington 12 Gauge Shotgun, 709 F. 2d 1468, 1469 (11th Cir.1983). Accordingly, the district court properly denied Scott’s untimely motion. See Elias v. Ford Motor Co., 734 F. 2d 463, 466 (1st Cir.1984) (Rule 59(e) motion denied for late filing). C. Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal This appea…
  • Burnam v. Amoco Container Co., 738 F.2d 1230 (11th Cir. 1984)
    …f the district court within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed.R. App.P. 4(a)(1). The filing of a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. United States v. One Remington 12 Gauge Shotgun, 709 F. 2d 1468, 1469 (11th Cir.1983). Therefore, in the instant case, unless the April 23 order tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal, appellant’s May 17 filing was untimely and this court lacks jurisdiction. Resolution of this jurisdictional question req…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw