971 F.3d 772
8th Cir.2020Background
- Campbell pled guilty to producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 and was sentenced to 336 months, to run concurrently with impending Wright County (Minn.) state-court sentences.
- The plea agreement and the parties jointly recommended concurrency with two specific Wright County cases, which were listed by case number in the plea agreement.
- At sentencing and in the original district-court judgment (Sept. 16, 2019), the court ordered the federal sentence concurrent with "any sentence imposed in Wright County District Court," without listing the two case numbers.
- The district court amended the judgment on Sept. 26, 2019 to add the two Wright County case numbers; no other substantive change was made.
- Campbell filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 7, 2019 (21 days after the original judgment; 11 days after the amended judgment). The question became whether the amendment restarted the 14-day appeal clock.
- The court held the amendment was immaterial and did not restart the appeal period, found the appeal untimely, and remanded for the district court to decide whether excusable neglect or good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) justifies extending the appeal period (up to 30 days beyond the original 14-day period).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Campbell) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended judgment restarted the 14-day appeal period | The amended judgment (adding case numbers) restarted the appeal period, so the notice of appeal was timely | The amendment was mere clarification and did not restart the appeal period; the original judgment controls | Amendment was immaterial and did not restart the appeal period |
| Whether the notice of appeal was timely | Filed within 11 days of the amended judgment, so timely | Filed 21 days after original judgment, so untimely | Appeal untimely because measured from the original judgment |
| Whether the district court should extend the appeal time under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) | Seeks extension based on excusable neglect or good cause | No district-court finding yet; extension must be determined below | Remanded for the district court to decide excusable neglect/good cause and, if found, extend time up to 30 days; requested ruling by Sept. 15, 2020 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Starks, 840 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2016) (Rule 4(b) timeliness requirements are inflexible; remand for district-court finding on excusable neglect/good cause)
- United States v. Watson, 623 F.3d 542 (8th Cir. 2010) (supports strict enforcement of Rule 4(b) appeal deadlines)
- United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 1994) (court may consult entire record to determine an imprecise judgment's obvious intent)
- United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944 (5th Cir. 1987) (same principle: use record to ascertain intent when judgment imprecise)
- United States v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145 (8th Cir. 1970) (same principle regarding judgment interpretation)
- FTC v. Minneapolis–Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1952) (amendments that do not alter legal rights or obligations do not restart appeal periods)
- United States v. Lewis, 921 F.2d 563 (5th Cir. 1991) (correction of an immaterial error—wrong year—did not restart appeal time)
- White v. Westrick, 921 F.2d 784 (8th Cir. 1990) (correcting defendant name spelling in judgment did not restart appeal period)
- United States v. 1,431.80 Acres of Land, 466 F.2d 820 (8th Cir. 1972) (amendment correcting trial dates did not restart the time to appeal)