Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

494 F.2d 1185

Docket No. 74-1174

Cramer v. Wise

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-05-30

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1977

20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Evans v. Jones · James Bryant v. Marion J. Elliott, Warden of Atmore State Prison

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1974-05-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clifton Ralph Cramer, pro se.

William S. Sessions, U.S. Atty., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and AINSWORTH, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Clifton Ralph Cramer was convicted after a jury trial on fifteen counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. He was sentenced to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 5010(b) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act and was fined $10,000.

¶2

In this pro se appeal from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, he contends, citing United States v. Hayes, 9 Cir., 1973, 474 F.2d 965, that the imposition of the fine in addition to sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act was error. Our preliminary concern, however, is with the fact that this appeal was not timely filed. Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that notice of appeal in a case such as this be filed within 60 days of the entry of judgment. The district court's denial of relief here was entered on September 26, 1973, and the notice of appeal was filed on December 7, 1973.1 Thus, the appeal was 11 days late. In view of thise circumstances, as well as the fact that the appeal is pro se, the interests of justice are best served by remanding the case to the district court to allow Cramer 30 days in which to move for a determination whether under Rule 4(a) excusable neglect entitles him to an extension of the time for appeal. In the meantime, jurisdiction is retained in this Court. See Bryant v. Elliott, 5 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 1109; Weaver v. Texas, 5 Cir., 1972, 469 F.2d 1314; Evans v. Jones, 4 Cir., 1966, 366 F.2d 772; C. Wright, Federal Courts 467 (1970).

¶3

Remanded.

1

Notarization of the notice of appeal was executed on November 26, 1973

/494/f2d/1185 · .json · Public domain