Stutson v. United States, 516 U.S. 193 (1996)

Stutson v. United States

No. 94-8988

Decided January 8, 1996
516 U.S. 193

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The District Court held that petitioner Stutson’s untimely appeal from his federal conviction and prison sentence was not the result of excusable neglect within the meaning of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(b) because his lawyer’s office mailed his notice of appeal so that it arrived one working day late and at the Court of Appeals, rather than at the District Court. The court’s opinion did not advert to this Court’s holding in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, that, in some circumstances, a party’s inadvertent failure to file a proof of claim in a timely manner in bankruptcy proceedings is excusable neglect under the bankruptcy rules. On appeal, the Government argued that Pioneer did not apply to the Rule 4(b) criminal appeal context, and the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal without hearing oral argument or writing an opinion. In response to Stutson’s certiorari petition, the Government has reversed its position, adopting the view of six Courts of Appeals that the Pioneer standard applies in Rule 4 cases.

Held: using the analysis set forth in Lawrence v. Chater, ante, p. 163 (per curiam), the particularities of this case merit an order granting the petition for certiorari, vacating the judgment below, and remanding the case (GVR). There appears to be a reasonable probability that the Eleventh Circuit will reach a different conclusion on remand, and the equities clearly favor a GVR order. The exceptional combination of circumstances here -- the Government has repudiated the position that it advanced below; the only opinion below did not consider the import of a recent Supreme Court precedent which both parties now agree applies; the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed that decision; all six Courts of Appeals that have addressed the applicability of Pioneer have concluded that it applies to Rule 4 cases; and Stutson is in jail having, through no fault of his own, had no plenary consideration of his appeal -- presents ample justification for the order. Here, as in Lawrence, a GVR order guarantees Stutson full and fair consideration of his rights in light of all pertinent considerations, and is also satisfactory to the Government. The order both promotes fairness and respects the Eleventh Circuit’s dignity by enabling it to consider potentially relevant decisions and arguments that were not previously before it.

Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.