March v. United States of America

Filing 50

ORDER granting 36 Motion to reopen. The Court's prior Order (Doc. 40) denying the motion is VACATED. Petitioner may file his notice of appeal within 14 days from the date when this Order is entered. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/2/2018. (TKW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

NATHANIEL MARCH,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No: 6:14-cv-1951-Orl-31KRS
(6:13-cr-57-Orl-31KRS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the Order of Remand entered by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals on June 22, 2018.1 (Doc. 46).
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 33)
dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (“Motion to
Vacate,” Doc. 1) and a corresponding Judgment (Doc. 34). Petitioner did not file a notice
of appeal, but he later filed a Motion to Reopen the Time to File An Appeal (“Motion to
Reopen,” Doc. 36), which the Court denied. (Doc. 40). Petitioner appealed the denial of
the Motion to Reopen, and the Government filed a Motion to Remand, which the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted. (Doc. 46).
The Court directed the parties to file memoranda of law and applicable evidence
demonstrating whether the period of time to file a notice of appeal should be reopened.

1 The

Mandate was issued on the same date.

As a result, the Government filed a Memorandum of Law (Doc. 48), and Petitioner filed
a Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Reopen Appeal Period Pursuant to Rule
4(a)(6) of Fed. R. App. P. (Doc. 49).
II.

ANALYSIS

The Court entered its Order (Doc. 33) dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate on
March 3, 2017, and the corresponding Judgment (Doc. 34) was dated March 6, 2017.1 On
August 31, 2017, 2 Petitioner filed the Motion To Reopen, requesting that he be permitted
to pursue a belated appeal. Petitioner stated that his counsel failed to provide him with
copies of the March 3, 2017, Order and the Judgment and that, on August 16, 2017, he
filed a Notice of Inquiry (Doc. 35) seeking information about the status of the case. (Doc.
36 at 2). On August 16, 2017, the Clerk’s Office sent Petitioner a copy of the Order and
Judgment. (Doc. 35). It appears that this is the means by which Petitioner was first
notified of the Court’s entry of judgment against him.
Petitioner requested the Court “reopen the time to file an appeal since the court
may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when it’s [sic]
order to reopen is entered because all the following conditions are met.” (Doc. 36 at 2).

Although the Judgement was dated March 6, 2017, it was entered by the Clerk’s
Office in the Court’s CM/ECF system on March 3, 2017.
1

“Under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se prisoner's court filing is deemed filed
on the date it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing.” United States v. Glover, 686
F.3d 1203, 1205 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). Petitioner informed the Court that
he mailed the instant motion on August 31, 2017. (Doc. 38 at 1)
2

2

The Court denied the Motion to Reopen because more than 180 days had elapsed since
the Judgment was entered. (Doc. 40 at 3).
The exclusive avenue for seeking such relief is under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(6). See Vencor Hospitals, Inc. v. Standard Life and Accident Insurance Co., 279
F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002) (“we conclude Rule 4(a)(6) provides the exclusive method
for extending a party's time to appeal for failure to receive actual notice that a judgment
or order has been entered.”). Rule 4(a)(6) provides as follows:
(6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. The district court may reopen
the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date when its order
to reopen is entered, but only if all the following conditions are satisfied:
(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order
sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;
(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is
entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and
(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.
(Emphasis added).
After review of the parties’ Memoranda of Law, the Court finds that the Order
denying the Motion to Reopen should be reconsidered and that the Motion to Reopen
should be granted. First, the Court finds that Petitioner did not receive notice of entry of
the Judgment within twenty-one days after entry. Second, as the Government points out,
the Judgment was dated March 6, 2018, and, therefore, only 178 days elapsed between
the date of the Judgment and the filing of the Motion to Reopen. Finally, the Government

3

states that it “does not believe that it would be prejudiced by the district court’s reopening
of the appeal period.” (Doc. 48 at 5).
The Court finds, therefore, that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Rule
4(a)(6) to reopen the time to file his appeal.3 Petitioner is advised, however, that, under
Rule 4(a)(6), the Court may only reopen the filing period for fourteen days. Petitioner's
failure to file a notice of appeal within that time period may foreclose him from pursuing
an appeal in this case.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen the Time to File An Appeal (Doc. 36) is

GRANTED, and the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 40) denying the motion is VACATED.
2.

Petitioner may file his notice of appeal within 14 days from the date when

this Order is entered.
3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 2, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
OrlP-2 8/2

The Court notes that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in its Order of
Remand, directed its Clerk “to close the file on this appeal.” (Doc. 46 at 2). It appears,
therefore, that Petitioner will be initiating new appellate proceedings.
4
3