466 F. App'x 327
5th Cir.2012Background
- Bouldin is a federal prisoner appealing from a 13 September 2011 denial of his Rule 33 motion for a new trial and Rule 60(b) relief from judgment.
- Guilty-plea conviction became final in 2008; review is for abuse of discretion.
- Appellate brief also mentions a 19 September 2011 denial, but the notice of appeal designated only the 13 September order.
- Court lacks jurisdiction to review the 19 September denial under Rule 3 and controlling precedent.
- District court found Rule 33 motion untimely; time limits and equitable tolling are challenged.
- Rule 60(b) arguments are treated as inapplicable to criminal cases; Rule 60(b) relief does not apply here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over the 19 Sept denial | Bouldin challenges both denials. | Notice of appeal only designated the 13 Sept order; no jurisdiction over the 19 Sept denial. | Affirmed lack of jurisdiction for 19 Sept denial. |
| Timeliness of Rule 33 motion | Equitable tolling should apply to Rule 33 deadlines. | Timeliness challenged; waiver due to inadequate briefing. | Rule 33 untimeliness affirmed; waiver of tolling preserved. |
| Eberhart doctrine applicability | District court erred by sua sponte dismissal consistent with Eberhart. | Eberhart not controlling; district court correctly enforced the rule. | Eberhart not controlling; upheld district court's timing ruling. |
| Rule 60(b) applicability in criminal cases | Rule 60(b) relief can be invoked in criminal cases. | Civil procedure rules do not apply to criminal cases. | Rule 60(b) relief unnecessary and inapplicable; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 33 appeals)
- Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2006) (nonjurisdictional nature of certain processing rules)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (Rule 3 jurisdictional requirement for appeals)
- United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 2006) (district court may enforce inflexible claims-processing rules)
- Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12 (Supreme Court 2005) (time requirements for Rule 33 are nonjurisdictional claims-processing rules)
- United States v. O’Keefe, 169 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 1999) (civil rules do not apply to criminal cases)