Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jae Gab KIM, Defendant-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

ORDER

The opinion filed on August 5, 2002 is amended as follows:

Slip Opinion, p. 11152, ¶ 3, Eliminate the entire paragraph and replace as follows: We do note that the Rules say that they "do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals." Fed.R.App.P. 1(b). We also note that, although we have said in dicta that § 3731 was not jurisdictional, United States v. Humphries, 636 F.2d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1980), we are not bound by this dicta and now agree with the Tenth Circuit that the statute is jurisdictional, United States v. Sasser, 971 F.2d 470, 473 (10th Cir. 1972). Although the Sasser court went on to find a conflict between Rule 4(b) and § 3731 the conflict asserted here is a different one. We are reluctant to read the Rules, carefully crafted as they are, to have made an illegal expansion of our jurisdiction. Rather, we read Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1)(B)(i) to make precise the meaning in this context of "rendered" in § 3731. We hold that, in the light of the Rule, a judgment is rendered when there is entry of the judgment on the docket. Accordingly, the government's appeals in these two cases were timely.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. KIM
(Feb 4, 2003)