From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Kim

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 5, 2002
317 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

Nos. 01-50472, 01-50543.

Submitted July 10, 2002.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 5, 2002. Amended February 4, 2003.

Miriam A. Krinsky and Becky S. Walker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Maria E. Stratton, Federal Public Defender, James H. Locklin, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Stoll.

William J. Genego, Esq., Santa Monica, California, for defendant-appellee Kim.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Robert J. Timlin, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-01-00024-RT, D.C. No. CR-00-00011-RT-1.

Before NOONAN, WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges.



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.

We also note that Fed.R.App.P. 1(b) has been abrogated effective December 1, 2002. See Order of April 29, 2002, 122 S.Ct. No. 18, Ct.R-648 (2002).


Summaries of

U.S. v. Kim

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 5, 2002
317 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case details for

U.S. v. Kim

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jae Gab KIM…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 5, 2002

Citations

317 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2002)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Barekzai

The government's appeal is also timely, because it was filed within 30 days of the entry of the district…

United States v. Kalb

In so holding, we join the United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. See United…