Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden (551 U.S. 205)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 14, 2007 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 551 U.S. 205 · 127 S. Ct. 2360
- Decided
- June 14, 2007
- Term
- October Term 2006
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, a District Court purported to extend a party’s time for filing an appeal beyond the period allowed by statute. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed after the statutory period but within the period allowed by the District Court’s order. We have long and repeatedly held that the time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s untimely notice — even though filed in reliance upon a District Court’s order— deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. I In 1999, an Ohio jury convicted petitioner Keith Bowles of murder for his involvement in the beating death of Ollie Gipson. The jury sentenced Bowles to 15-years-to-life imprisonment. Bowles unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Bowles then filed a federal habeas corpus application on September 5, 2002. On September 9, 2003, the District Court denied Bowles habeas relief. After the entry of final judgment, Bowles had 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. §2107(a). He failed to do so. On December 12, 2003, Bowles moved to reopen the period during which he could file his notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6), which allows district courts to extend the filing period for 14 days…
Excerpt of a 17,496-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.