Gerald Hansen v. U.S. Parole Comm'n J.J. Clark, 996 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Gerald Hansen v. U.S. Parole Comm'n J.J. Clark, 996 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Mozone v. Commissioner of Social Security (kywd, 2020-09-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Mozone v. Commissioner of Social Security
W.D. Ky. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Meeks v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 996 F.2d 1215 , 1993 WL 216530, at *1 (6th Cir. June 18, 1993) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.955 ) (unpublished) (“An Appeals Council order denying review is not, however, a reviewable order; such an order serves only to make the decision of the ALJ the final reviewable decision of the [Commissioner].”); Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 2001) (“No statutory authority (the source of the district court's review) authorizes the court to review the Appeals Council decision to deny review.”); Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc.
discussed Cited "see" in re: P. Whitaker v.
6th Cir. BAP · 2005 · signal: accord · confidence high
“Although the decision in Pioneer involved Bankruptcy Rule 9006, the Court’s reasoning applies to other rules creating an ‘excusable neglect’ exception to time limits.” Duncan v. Washington, 25 F.3d 1047 (Table), 1994 WL 232397, at *3 (6th Cir. 1994); accord, e.g., Labair v. Mayville Feed & Grain, Inc. (In re Mayville Feed & Grain Inc.), 996 F.2d 1215 (Table), 1993 WL 213684, at **1 (6th Cir. 1993); Allied Domecq Retailing USA v. Schultz (In re Schultz), 254 B.R. 149, 153 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2000); Schmidt v. Boggs (In re Boggs), 246 B.R. 265, 268 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2000); HML II, Inc. v.…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald Hansen
v.
U.S. Parole Commission J.J. Clark
92-6519.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Jun 24, 1993.
996 F.2d 1215
Unpublished

996 F.2d 1215

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Gerald HANSEN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION; J.J. Clark, Respondents-Appellees.

Nos. 92-6519, 92-6541.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 24, 1993.

Before: NELSON and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges; and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

ORDER

1

These cases have been referred to a panel of the court for initial consideration of appellate jurisdiction. A review of the record indicates that the case was dismissed by order filed August 25 and the judgment of the district court was entered September 3, 1992. A motion for reconsideration of the decision was served August 30 and filed September 4. Notices of appeal were filed on September 4 (appeal No. 92-6519) and September 10 (appeal No. 92-6541). Reconsideration was denied by order filed September 14, 1992, and entered September 15.

2

This court lacks jurisdiction in these appeals. The motion for reconsideration was served within 10 days of entry of the decision as calculated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). As such, it is construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion and tolled the appeal period as provided by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). See Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 915 F.2d 201, 206 (6th Cir.1990); Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297, 304-05 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1103 (1987). A notice of appeal filed before disposition of a time-tolling motion has no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion. Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 173-74 (1989); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam). No new notice of appeal has been filed since the entry of the order denying the motion for reconsideration.

3

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appeal Nos. 92-6519 and 92-6541 be, and they hereby are, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 8(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.