Appellate Decisions

Partially Objecting to an Untimely Criminal Appeal

When the government objected to only some of the issues raised in an untimely criminal appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed the remaining issues.

November 7, 2023

By Bryan Lammon

In United States v. Crump, the Third Circuit permitted the government to partially object to the untimeliness of a criminal appeal. That meant the court of appeals had to dismiss the appeal insofar as it raised the objected-to issues. But the court could address the other issues that the defendant raised on appeal.

Defendants in criminal cases have 14 days after the judgment is entered to file their notice of appeal. But unlike the civil-appeal deadline, the criminal-appeal deadline is not jurisdictional. So a late notice of appeal—and the notice in Crump was several months late—does not affect appellate jurisdiction.

Appellate courts nevertheless must enforce the criminal-appeal deadline if the opposing party objects. In Crump, the government partially objected to the timeliness of the defendant’s notice of appeal. The government objected to some sentencing-enhancement issues that the defendant raised. But it did not object to other issues, specifically whether the defendants had been convicted of crimes of violence.

The Third Circuit accordingly dismissed the appeal insofar as it challenged the sentencing enhancements. But since the government did not object to review of the crime-of-violence issues, the Third Circuit went on to review and reverse the district court’s decision on those issues.

I don’t recall ever seeing the government partially object to a late notice of appeal. But given the non-jurisdictional nature of the criminal-appeal deadline, I also don’t see any problem with this sort of partial objection. The appeal deadline exists in part to protect the appellee. And if the appellee wants to partially waive the protections of a non-jurisdictional appeal deadline, I see no reason not to allow it.

United States v. Crump, 2023 WL 7297334 (3d Cir. Nov. 6, 2023), available at the Third Circuit and Westlaw

recent posts

No Perlman Appeals When the Same Issues Could Be Raised via Contempt
The Eleventh Circuit held that a privilege claimant cannot take a Perlman appeal when the claimant could have raised the same issues via its own contempt appeal.
A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
The Month in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: September 2024
Another split on pure Bivens appeals, no equitable exceptions for Rule 4(a)(4), another failure to apply the Rule 3(c) amendments, and more.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals
The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

related posts

A Rule 4 Conflict: The Prison-Mailbox Rule v. the Mistaken-Filing Rule
The Fifth Circuit held that when an imprisoned appellant mistakenly mails a notice of appeal to the court of appeals, the notice is deemed filed when deposited in the prison mail system.
Serving, Filing, and Equitable Exceptions to Rule 4(a)(4)
The Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the appeal clock. The court added that Rule 4(a)(4) does not allow for equitable exceptions and addressed an order-designation issue, too.
No Rehearing on Rule 4(a)(6) & Multi-Purpose Notices of Appeal
The en banc Fourth Circuit declined to rehear a case asking whether a single notice of appeal could be treated as both a Rule 4(a)(6) motion and—once that motion was granted—a notice of appeal.
New Arguments After a Notice of Appeal
When a party raises an issue for the first time after filing its notice of appeal, does the notice limit jurisdiction over that issue? Or does the case instead implicate prudential limits on appellate courts’ addressing issues in the first instance?
Another Dated Discussion of Rule 3(c)
The Ninth Circuit provided another outdated discussion of Rule 3(c) and the order-designation requirement, overlooking the 2021 amendments to that rule.