Case Information
*1 Before: GIBBONS, SUTTON, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Kevin M. Schad, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. With a district court’s permission, Raymond Earl Burch, Jr., appealed the revocation of his term of supervised release aftеr the fourteen-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal. The government moves to dismiss the appeal, claiming that the district court abused its discretion in excusing the notice’s untimeliness. What looks like a simple extension motion (and a simple objection to it) raises a not-so-simple question: Must the United
1
States file a cross-appеal to challenge the order on appeal or may it challenge the order through a motion to dismiss?
Before answering the question, it is worth filling in a few more details about whаt
happened below. On August 21, 2014, the district court revoked Burch’s term of supervised
release.
See
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Burch had the right to challenge the revocation on appeal,
see
id.
§§ 3557, 3742(a), thоugh the statute does not specify the time within which he must appeal,
id.
§ 3742(a). The relevant rules of procedure provide the deadline. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure gives a criminal defendant fourteen days to file a notice of appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A), and permits a district court to extend the time to filе a notice for up to
thirty additional days,
id.
4(b)(4). On September 26, after the fourteen-day deadline had come
and gone, Burch filed a notice of appeal and a rеquest for an extension of time. The district court
granted the requested extension on October 9, rendering his September 26 notice of appeal
timely.
See id.
;
United States v. Wrice
,
In the normal course, when an appellant files a notice of appeal after the deadlines
specified by Appellate Rule 4, the appellee may file a motion to dismiss the untimely appeal with
this court. Fed. R. App. P. 27;
see, e.g.
,
Hobbs v. Cnty. of Summit
,
Two circuits have considered the situation and have come to different views. In a brief opinion, the Third Circuit rejected the motion to dismiss (in a civil case) and concluded that the appellee must “appeal from the order granting the extension of time to appeal.” Amatangelo v. Borough of Donora , 212 F.3d 776, 780 (3d Cir. 2000). That is to say, in the absence of a separate appeal (or cross-apрeal) challenging the granting of the extension motion, the court concluded that it lacked authority to dismiss the appeal.
The Tenth Circuit took the opposite pоsition (in a criminal case) and permitted a motion
to dismiss. “The office of a cross-appeal,” it observed, “is to give the appellee more than it
obtained by the lower-court judgment.”
United States v. Madrid
,
We agree with the Third Circuit and offer a few more reasons for taking this path. The starting point is that litigants dissatisfied with a district court’s judgment or ordеr normally must file an appeal challenging the decision. Neither the relevant federal statute nor Appellate Rules 3 or 4 refer to cross-appeals by name. They refer to appeals, and a party dissatisfied with a district court’s order is well-served to file one, whether labeled an appeal or cross-appeаl, within the relevant timelines. Nor is there anything unusual about time-extension orders that suggests a different rule should apply to them. It may be unusual for parties to challenge time-extensiоn orders (and still more unusual for the government to do so, see 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)). But there is nothing awkward about treating the order like anything else that the district court did and thus something that must be challenged through a nоtice of appeal. Whether a time-extension order happens at the beginning of the case or at the end, it remains an order readily challengeable through a notice of appeal.
In this instance, the district court issued an order granting Burch more time to file his
notice of appeal from the judgment. Although the government remаined satisfied with the rest of
the judgment, it did not agree with the district court’s exercise of discretion in the ancillary order.
When a party wants an appellate court to revеrse a trial court’s postjudgment order, it
customarily files an appeal with respect to that order.
See, e.g.
,
Decker v. GE Healthcare Inc.
,
This approach also respects thе Supreme Court’s directives about when a (largely)
prevailing party should file an appeal or cross-appeal. “[F]rom its earliest years,” the Court “has
recognizеd that it takes a cross-appeal to justify a remedy in favor of an appellee,”
Greenlaw v.
*4
United States
,
This approach also respects the settings where we do dismiss appeals by motion. One such setting is when we lack subject-matter jurisdiction tо hear the appeal. There, however, the defect—whether a missed notice-of-appeal deadline in a civil case or some criminal cases, аn absence of jurisdiction at the trial level, or some other such problem—is not forfeitable. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. , 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). There, indeed, we do not even need a motion to dismiss, much less a cross-appeal, to notice the error; a mere whisper at oral argument will do the trick, as will a court’s identification of the problem on its own. We also permit motions to dismiss (as opposed to appeals or cross-appeals) that seek to enforce a district court’s order, as when a trial court has approved а plea agreement that waives the defendant’s right to appeal. See, e.g. , United States v. Toth , 668 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2012). And we permit motions to dismiss where a criminal defendant has filed an untimely notice of appeal without district court authorization. See, e.g. , United States v. White , 876 F.2d 104 (6th Cir. 1989) (table). But in none of those settings is the moving party seeking to reverse a district court order. That, however, is just what we have here: a request to rеverse the district court’s decision to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
No doubt this approach differs from the approach of the Tenth Circuit, whiсh reviewed a
district court’s time-extension order through the government’s motion to dismiss and did not
require an appeal or cross-appeal from that order.
Madrid
, 633 F.3d at 1225. But the Tenth
Cirсuit may have misread Supreme Court precedent in determining when an appellee must file
an appeal or cross-appeal. Under the Tenth Circuit’s reading, a cross-appeal is required only
*5
when the appellee wants “more than it obtained by the lower-court judgment.”
Id.
The court
thus considered the government’s attack on the distriсt court’s time-extension order uncovered
by the cross-appeal rule because “the government was not seeking alteration of the judgment
below in its favor.” But
Jennings
makes сlear that a cross-appeal is required when an
appellee attacks an order with a view toward “enlarging his own rights thereunder
or
of lessening
the rights of his adversary.”
That leaves the question whether wе may overlook the government’s failure to file a cross-appeal and address the merits of its motion anyway. We think not, as the requirement is mandatory and consistently followed. “[I]n more than two centuries of repeatedly endorsing the cross-appeal requirement, not a single [Supreme Court case] has ever recognized an exception to the rule.” El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie , 526 U.S. 473, 480 (1999). The government offers no reason to forge a new exception here.
For these reasons, we deny the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT ________________________________ Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk