United States v. Eric Kalb
891 F.3d 455
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Early-morning 2014 stop of Eric Kalb after a 911 caller reported an electrocution; Kalb admitted being the caller and described his friend “scrapping.”
- Kalb was indicted on federal property-destruction counts; he moved to suppress statements and physical evidence recovered after the stop.
- District Court granted the suppression motion (Oct. 21, 2016) and issued a written opinion three days later.
- The Government filed a motion for reconsideration on Nov. 29, 2016 (more than 30 days after the suppression order); the District Court denied reconsideration on Jan. 13, 2017, on the merits.
- The Government appealed both the suppression order and the denial of reconsideration; the Third Circuit addressed whether 18 U.S.C. § 3731’s 30-day appeal period is jurisdictional and whether a post-period motion for reconsideration can toll that deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Kalb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 3731’s 30‑day appeal period jurisdictional? | Not expressly contested by government; argued appeals can be tolled by motions timely under any applicable rule | Argued the 30‑day period is jurisdictional and bars late appeals | The 30‑day period in § 3731 is jurisdictional |
| Does a motion for reconsideration filed after the 30‑day period toll the appeal deadline if the district court deems it “timely”? | A district court’s characterization of timeliness should control; any rule making the motion timely suffices to toll | A motion must be filed within the statutory 30 days to render the order nonfinal; a late motion cannot rejuvenate an expired appeal right | A motion for reconsideration must be filed within § 3731’s 30‑day period to toll the appeal window; a post‑period motion cannot revive an expired appeal right |
| Does district‑court consideration of an untimely motion override jurisdictional limits? | District court’s decision on the merits should be respected even if the motion was filed late | Jurisdictional rules cannot be overridden by district‑court practice or equitable considerations | Consideration on the merits does not overcome a jurisdictional time bar; courts cannot extend jurisdictional deadlines |
| Was the District Court’s denial of reconsideration an abuse of discretion? | Argued new factual/ legal points warranted reconsideration (e.g., Terry, Lidster, attenuation) | Argued the new arguments could have been raised earlier and thus are not proper on reconsideration | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (statutorily prescribed appeal periods are jurisdictional)
- Healy v. United States, 376 U.S. 75 (1964) (timely petitions for rehearing render judgment nonfinal)
- United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1 (1991) (timely motion for reconsideration postpones appeal time until disposition)
- United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6 (1976) (treating timely petitions for rehearing as rendering the original judgment nonfinal)
- United States v. Martinez, 681 F.2d 1248 (10th Cir. 1982) (motion for reconsideration filed after 30 days does not revive appeal period)