green
Positive treatment
11.7 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Eric Kalb
See United States v. Kim , 298 F.3d 746 , 749 (9th Cir. 2002), amended by 317 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) ; United States v. Cook , 599 F.3d 1208 , 1212 (10th Cir. 2010).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Barekzai
See United States v. Kim, 317 F.3d 917, 918 (9th Cir.2003), amending 298 F.3d 746 (9th Cir.2002).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Barekzai
See United States v. Kim, 317 F.3d 917, 918 (9th Cir.2003), amending 298 F.3d 746 (9th Cir.2002).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Jae Gab KIM, Defendant-Appellee; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Edward Stoll, Defendant-Appellee
v.
Jae Gab KIM, Defendant-Appellee; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Edward Stoll, Defendant-Appellee
01-50472, 01-50543.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 4, 2003.
Miriam A. Krinsky and Becky S. Walker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant., Maria E. Stratton, Federal Pubic Defender, James H. Loeklin, Deputy Federal, Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Stoll., William J. Genego, Esq., Santa Monica, California, for defendant-appellee Kim.
Noonan, Wardlaw, Berzon.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
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). [1] 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,[*918] 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)(l)(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.
1
. 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).