United States v. Donnell Thomas, 711 F. App'x 853

Following a competency evaluation, the district court found Donnell Thomas incompetent and committed him under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1) for up to 120 days to restore competency.
The court thereafter signed an order extending commitment for an additional up to 120 days under § 4241(d)(2)(A), stating there was a substantial probability Thomas could attain competency with the extra time; that order was docketed May 19, 2017.
Thomas filed a notice of appeal on July 3, 2017, 45 days after the extension order was entered on the docket and 31 days after the 14-day appeal window closed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b).
Thomas contended his appeal was from an order entered at a June 26, 2017 hearing and argued the notice fairly described that order, but the court’s record showed no order was entered on June 26.
While the appeal was pending, Thomas’s clinician determined he had attained competency, prompting discharge and competency proceedings; the government moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely under Rule 4(b) and declined Thomas’s alternative request to remand to the district court to consider excusable neglect under Rule 4(b)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Thomas argued his notice appealed an order entered June 26, 2017, so the appeal was timely.	Government argued the extension order was docketed May 19, 2017, so the 14-day appeal period expired June 2, 2017, and the notice filed July 3 was late.	Appeal dismissed as untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b); dismissal required absent government forfeiture.
Whether the June 26 hearing entry counts as an order for appeal	Thomas contended the notice fairly described the June 26 order he sought to appeal.	Government and record showed no order was entered June 26; minute entry did not constitute an appealable order.	Court rejected Thomas’s claim; no order was entered June 26 and the minute entry was not an order for appeal purposes.
Mootness of appeal	Thomas challenged the extension on statutory and constitutional grounds (e.g., hearing requirement before extension).	Government argued clinician’s later competency finding rendered the appeal moot.	Court did not decide mootness because appeal was dismissed as untimely.
Request for remand to consider excusable neglect	Thomas asked remand so district court could grant a 30-day extension under Rule 4(b)(4).	Government opposed; court saw no basis to remand.	Ninth Circuit declined to remand and denied relief under Rule 4(b)(4).

United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(b) is an inflexible claim-processing rule and untimely appeals must be dismissed absent forfeiture)
Ingram v. AcandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (minute entry does not necessarily constitute an appealable order)
United States v. Mancinas-Flores, 588 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing objections from ‘exceptions’ in courtroom practice)