United States District Court, D. Nebraska
E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court
matter is before the Court on the defendant, Sara
Jarrett's (“defendant” or
“Jarrett”) motion for extension filed September
30, 2016 (Filing No. 1539). After review of the
defendant's motion, the Court finds that defendant's
motion to extend is untimely making any and all past or
future notices of appeal as to the Court's September 14,
2015, order (Filing No. 1494) untimely.
RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT MOTION
August 7, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for relief under
Rule 60(b) (Filing No. 1483). On August 14, 2015,
while that motion was still pending, defendant filed a motion
to amend sentencing order (Filing No. 1484). On
September 14, 2015, the Court entered an order denying both
of defendant's motions (Filing No. 1494). On
September 18, 2015, the Court received a request from the
defendant for an extension of 30 days to respond to the
government's brief (Filing No. 1492) in
opposition to the defendant's motions (Filing No.
1497). The defendant's request for an extension
to respond was sent on September 15, 2015, the day following
the Court's order denying both of defendant's
motions. See Filing No. 1497 at 3.
September 28, 2015, the Court denied defendant's request
for an extension to file a reply reasoning “[t]he
issues that were originally waived by the defendant in this
case have been briefed and rebriefed by both the government
and defendant, the Court has previously denied
defendant's motion which she seeks to address further . .
. .” (Filing No. 1498 at 1 (referring to
Filing No. 1497)). The Court also noted
defendant's two pending motions (Filing Nos. 1424 and
1431) concerning a reduction of sentence pursuant to the
Guideline Amendment 782. (Id.)
on October 9, 2015, defendant filed her reply brief anyway
(Filing No. 1499). A few days later on October 13,
2015, defendant filed a motion for status of the case (Filing
No. 1500). The Court, on October 14, 2015, informed
the defendant of the denial of Filing No. 1481 by
the Court's September 14, 2015, order (Filing No.
1494). (Filing No. 1501 at 1). The Court
again noted the defendant's “two pending motions to
reduce sentence (Filing No. 1424 and Filing No.
January 29, 2016, the defendant again filed a motion for
status (Filing No. 1519). Defendant alleged in her
January 29, 2016, motion that she was told one of her motions
was “ruled on 9/2015 but [she had] never received the
response.” (Id.) In response to the
defendant's second motion for status of the case, the
Court issued an order on February 9, 2016 (Filing No.
1522). That order informed the defendant of the
Court's continued understanding of defendant's two
pending motions to reduce sentence (Filing Nos. 1424 and
1431). (Id.) The Court also told defendant that
“[w]hen the Court receives a response from the United
States Attorney and the Federal Public Defender, the Court
will determine whether defendant is entitled to a reduction
of sentence.” (Id.)
February 22, 2016, the Federal Public Defender David R.
Stickman entered an appearance “as attorney for the
[d]efendant . . . .” (Filing No. 1524). On
that same day, Mr. Stickman filed a motion to withdraw from
representation of defendant stating he was appointed to
under General Order No. 2014-09, due to a potential reduction
of sentence pursuant to Amendment 782 to the United States
Guidelines. However, upon further review, it is apparent that
the [d]efendant was sentenced to the statutory minimum
sentence. As such, the [d]efendant does not qualify for a
sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 782.
(Filing No. 1525). Mr. Stickman's motion also
provided “[c]ounsel has advised the [d]efendant of
counsel's opinion that Amendment 782 does not apply in
this case.” (Id.) On March 9, 2016, the Court
granted Mr. Stickman's motion to withdraw and denied
defendant's motions to appoint counsel (Filing No.
1424) and reduce sentence (Filing No.
1431). (Filing No. 1527-1).
13, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal (Filing No.
1529). Defendant's notice of appeal seems to be
directed at the Court's September 28, 2015, order (Filing
No. 1498). See Filing No. 1529
(advising the Court that “she did not receive any
notice that her 60B motion had been denied . . . .”).
The Clerk of the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska issued a memorandum on June 13, 2016,
advising the Court that “[t]he notice of appeal, filing
1529, appears to be untimely pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(b).” (Filing No. 1531).
The Clerk advised the Court that the appeal would not be
forwarded to the Eighth Circuit “until a ruling has
been made on the issue of timeliness.” (Id.)
20, 2016, the Court granted defendant an extension to file
her notice of appeal (Filing No. 1532). The Court
stated that “[d]efendant claims she did not receive a
copy of the order (Filing No. 1494) denying her Rule
60(b) motion and the order (Filing No. 1527) which
denied her motion for sentence reduction.”
(Id.) The Court gave defendant until September 23,
2016, to file her notice of appeal. (Id.) The Court
also advised the defendant that she would be allowed to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.)
September 30, 2016, a week later than allowed by the
Court's July 20, 2016 order, defendant moved for a 60-day
extension “to submit [her] brief and appeal of the
denial of [her] 60(b).” (Filing No. 1539 at
1). Defendant cites “issues on getting copies of some
documents and getting time with the law clerk” to
support her “need of some extra time to get the last of
[her] brief written and submitted.” (Id.)
Defendant's motion also claims the motion was
“signed the 23rd day of September 2016. (Dropped in the