United States v. Gerald Stone
435 F. App'x 320
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Stone appeals the district court's final order of forfeiture and the Government moves to dismiss or affirm; alternative extension sought.
- The court must examine jurisdiction sua sponte when necessary; standing is required to invoke Article III jurisdiction.
- Preliminary forfeiture order became final as to Stone at sentencing; final order concerns third-party interests, not Stone's rights.
- Rule 32.2(b)(3) deemed the preliminary order final as to Stone by February 1, 2007; Stone's interest in forfeited property ended then.
- Stone's appeal of the final forfeiture order is thus improper; the final order did not implicate his rights.
- Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i) provides a 10-day appeal window for the forfeiture judgment; Stone filed the instant notice over three years later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Stone have standing to appeal the final forfeiture order? | Stone lacks standing since his interest ended at sentencing. | The Government argues Stone cannot appeal as his rights were not implicated by the final order. | No standing; appeal of final forfeiture order dismissed. |
| Is Stone's challenge to the preliminary order timely? | Stone timely appealed the forfeiture-related judgment. | Timeliness fails because Rule 4(b) requires appeal within 10 days of judgment. | Untimely; appeal of the preliminary order dismissed. |
| Did Rule 4(b) and related timing rules affect the disposition of this appeal? | Rule 4 deadlines can be extended under certain circumstances. | Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i) mandatory 10-day window; no valid extension here. | Mandatory time limits applied; Government's motion to dismiss granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. De Los Santos, 260 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2001) (preliminary order becomes final as to defendant; rights of third parties)
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2002) (post-sentencing activities concern third-party interests)
- Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1987) (courts may examine basis of jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Nevares v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 111 F.3d 25 (5th Cir. 1997) (standing required to appeal)
- Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2004) (aggrieved by judgment has standing to appeal)
- United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i) time limits are mandatory)