Can(

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I-ANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION
MD-1108-2015

STANLEY]. CATERBONE
vs.

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department

I.ANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

oRDER DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
AND NOW on this 18th day of October 2015, Petitioner, Stanley Caterbone, appearing pro

s, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania the

ORDER dated

the

28th

day of

September, 2015 by the Honorable Dennis Reinaker for the Petition for Review. The ORDER states

the foflowing: *AND NOW, this 28th day of Septemberr 2OLS, the Court has examined the
Petition for Review of Private Criminal Gomplaint. The Court finds no basis which to

overturn the decision disapproving the filing of criminal charges".

The Petitioner cites Case No. MD 879-2007 specifically the ORDER dated 27th day of
November, 2OO7 bV then President Judge Louis J. Farina which states the following: *AND NOW,
this 27th day of November, 2OA7, upon consideration of the Petition for Review of
Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that the
District Attorney's refusal to approve the private complaint due to "insufficient
evidence"', obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the
complaint establishes a prima facie case, see, Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa,
Super. 1996), and In re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wilson ll., 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super.
2OO5), the Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with
sufficient specificity to identify the information relied upon and lo explain the
Gommonwealth's decision to disapprove the filing of Petitioner's private criminal
complaint".
The Petitioner will argue that this same "de novo" review must be applied to this Petition

for Review according to the case law cited above.

Plaintiff requests that this appeal be filed under the rule 552 A) In Forma Pauperis under

the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Verification Statement, Application, and Argument
for Approval is attached.

Date: October 18, 2015

n

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaste[ PA L7603
777-669-2t63
scaterbone@live.com
www.

mg g loba lenterta i n mentg rou p.com

'?-'

'

j,ta"i ;---'-

",

'.li

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL

STANLEY J. CATERBONE
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

MD-l108-201s

ANd

vs.

LANCASTER CITY POLICE. ET. AL

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of September,20l5, the Court has examined the Petition for
Review of Private Criminal Complaint. The Court finds no basis upon which to overturn the
decision disapproving the filing of criminal charges as requested.

fB

I certity this document to be filed

in the Lancaster County Otfice of

the Glerk of the Courts.

/l--

//
-*-*s:ttffr ,//-S$f,Wri!r'.

//

*-ti,/-.'/!h!q:L1-'g'',?..t lllt!e:
=ll?.!:'l
E9iirt*s'
-.:e-.--:l*1t

Il,

.r:t.5i / ,/f
74:-.-T.-t

W#Ei.*'"
-4ffij:xiru-l/

Joshua G, Parsons
Glerk of the courts

BY T}IE COURT:
/S/DEITINIS REIiJAKER

pReS.JUDGE

DENNIS E. REINAKER
PRESIDENT JUDGE

Attest:

Copies to:

Stanley Caterbone, 1250 Fremont St., Lancaster, PA 17603

Chief Michael Landis, District Attomey's Office

EHF
suq

g=E

iE=

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

NTY, PENNSYLVAN IA

LANCAQIE&

Stanley J. Caterbone

elru tptz_ /) r /t 9oJ

cu4r*|Fts*fiqt#

-COU

PLAINTIFF

vs.

Case

No. <frffi

htcmr*C,ry/o,,9n
DEFENDANT
T

,/,L

ORDER RE; MOT|ON T0 PR0CEED tN FORMA pAUpERIS

bt day of
DcxrsP.
Proceed In Forma Pauperis i
AND NOW,

this

,2016

,the Petitioner's Motion to

s.

BY THE COURT,

I certify this document to be filed

in the Lancaster County Office of

o{r,

-r,F g
3R-v
ur,

Jcshua G. Parsons
Clcrk of the Courls

:x

Euq,:

E=F.
-.

\-cr -

:<qu;
-oH

-l

i
:

"'(1

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY

DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-MD-0001 1 08-201 5

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET
Motions
In Re: Stanley J. Caterbone

Page 1 of 2

CASEilFORTANON
Date Filed: 0912412015

Judqe Assiqned:

nitiation Date: 0912412015

Oriqinatinq Docket No:

LOTN:

9]N:

Initial lssuinq Authoritv:

Final lssuinq Authoritv:

Arresting Aqencv:

Arrestino Officer:

ComplainVlncident #:
Case Local Number Tvpe(s)

Case Local Number(s)

8Tf,TU8 NFORtATlOlrl
Case

Status:

Date
0912912015
0912412015

Closed

Status

Processinq Status
Completed
Awaiting Disposition

PETMONER II{FORTATIOII

071'1511958

Date Of Birth:

Citv/State/Zip: Lancaster, PA 17603

Alias Name
Caterbone, Stanley Jay
Caterbone, Stanley Joseph

CASEPARNdPAI{T8
Participant Tvpe

Name

Petitioner

Caterbone, Stanley J.

corilotsTEALTH

0t

ATTORNEYIITFORNATION

FoRtA'noN

Name:

Name:

Supreme Court No:

Suoreme Court No:

Rep. Status:
Phone Number(s):

"
Seouence Number

CP Filed Date

09t24t2015

ENTRIES

Document Date

Filed Bv
Caterbone, Stanley J.

Informa Pauperis Petition/Petition for Review

09t29t2015

Caterbone, Stanley J.

Petition for Review of Private Criminal Complaint

09t29t2015

Reinaker, Dennis E.

Order Denyrng Petrtion for Review of Pnvate Crimrnal Complaint

cPcMs

9082

Print6d'10/06/2015

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflecled on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayd
data, enors or omissrons on these reports Docket Sheet information should not be used in place ofa criminal history background check which can
only be provided by the Pennsyfuanra State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply wrth the provrsions of the Crimrnal Hrstory Record
Informatron Act may be sub.iect to civil liability as set forth In 18 Pa C.S Sectron 9183.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY

DOCKET

Docket Number: CP-36-MD-0001 108-201 5

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET
Motions
In Re: Stanley J. Caterbone

Page 2 ol 2

EITRIES
Sequence Number

CP Filed Date

09t29t2015

Document Date

Filed Bv
Reinaker, Dennis E.

Order Denying Motion lo Proceed In Forma Pauperis

cPcMs

9082

Pnntsd.10/06/2015

Recent entries made In the court filing offices may not be immedrately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial
System of the Commonwalth of Pnnsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvanra Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed
data, enors or omissrons on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can
only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record
lnformation Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANTA

CRIMINAL

STANLEY J. CATERBONE
VS.

NO. MD 87e-29A7

TONY FREEI'AN
NOBLE REAL ESTATE
GREG MILLAN
SI-{ELBY SHEPRO
CENTRAL PENN SERVICES

ORDER
AND NOW ,thts

A1

dayof November, 2}O7,upon consideration of the Petition

for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that
the DistrictAttorney's refusaf to approve the private comptaint due to 'insufficient evirCence"r,

obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the complaint

establishesaprimafaciecase, see, Michaelsy.8armsse,681A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1996),

and ln re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wlson Il, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005), the
Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity

to identify the information relied upon and to explain the Commonwealth's decision

to

disapprove the filing of Petltlone/s private crirninalcomplaint.

I certiff this documont to be fited

In the Lancaster CountY Otfice of
the Clerk of the Courts.

BY THE COURT:
LOUISJ.FARINA
PRES.JUDGE

LOUIS J. FARIM
PRESIDENT JUDGE

lChief County Detective Landis,

who reported the District Attomey's position by letter
ciated November 2,2007 , stated "Our investigation failed to find any criminal intent on the part
of the defendants, . . .'

lo

'.{fs'i{"'

aPJ$e.'-

'i.d.".

lrl

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF coMMoN PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION
MD-1108-2015

STANLEY J. CATERBONE

vs,
KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police Department
LANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
DETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police Department
OFFICER WILLIAMS
OFFICER BINDERUP

Ltrs

bu4,+wT

APPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION fOT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

AND NOW on this 16th day of October, 2015

I,

STANLEY

MEDIA GROUP, Petitioners, appearing pro se, do hereby

J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED

file the Appeal for

Reconsideration

pertaining to the REJECTION NOTICE with the Transaction ID:57985968 filed on October 8th, 2015
DENYING

the Praecipe to reinstate claiming the following " Praecipe to reinstate requires a filing of

$8.75.

PA State Rules require

a party to

inform the court

of

improvement

in

financial

circumstances. Your most recent IFP was denied. The IFP granted in this case is from 2008".

If the Court (NOT OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY!)

would consider the legal circumstances

surrounding my Whistleblowing activities and the Federal False Claims Act filing of the Petitioner

as

it

relates to the past 28 years and the myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District

Attorney, the Petitioner will argue that it is wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the
Petitioner

In Forma Pauperis Status. The Petitioner has filed ample evidence of a pattern and

relentless cycle of earning and accumulating capital and assets, as well building substantial worth

through his business interests, only to have it all extorted through an elaborate civil and criminal
scheme to defruad, Therefore any attempt to subject the Petitioner

to more court related

fees is only a continuation of that same said fraud.

/2

The above captioned case contains all the said evidence needed to support my
claims. If need be, there are several cases in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, such as 05-2288 and O6-465O that will suffice. In
addition I am claiming that this rejection was also in retaliation for my recent appeal to
the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to Lisa Lambelt v. Superintendent
Framingham MCI, et al.

am only several weeks away from a decision by a Panel of Third Circuit Judges
that may set Lisa Michelle Lambeft FREE for the rest of her natural life! In addition,
before the same said panel is an argument to grant me SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in all
federal and state court cases of which I am the PLAINTIFF seeking redress.
Consideration should be given

to

Pederson

v. South Williamsport Area School

District,

where the courts interpreted due process, as "Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due
process means". Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (L978, 524

the probability of unfairness can result in

2d. 644) have concluded the following: "Even

defendant being deprived of his due process rights...". The focus of these claims are recorded in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 05-2288 and 06-4650. In
addition the Petioner is the MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambrerft Case and recently filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, 04-2559, which was recently appealed to the Third Circuit Court

of Appeals. The preceding cases have been preserved by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in
case no. 07-4474, see attached.

The prosecutorial misconduct the the Petitioner has been subject to has violated his
constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the Petitioner from
completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 51983 Civil Rights Acts and 18
U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: "The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting
constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide
for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are
ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of
individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from
federal interference", 18 U.S.C.A. gg 24L, 242; U.S.C.A. - Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. t3, L4, 5,
15, $ 2: 42 U.S.C.A. SS 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.
A case can be made for a RICO violation as defined in the case of United States v. Holck,

389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the
following: "Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an

,3

indictment and it's proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which
attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing
acts in fuftherance of an overall plan". This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to
cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.
The attached 29 False Arrests, which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that

may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant

an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of facts formed for the purpose
charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d.2L9. In the same case the following
was supported: "Arrestee's allegations that the township (Conestoga) and it's police officers were
acting in conceft and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestee's constitutional rights
by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two
(2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and August
4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody", The preceding
pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.

In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a
plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an
unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with

intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business, In the case of United States

v.

Holck, 389 F, Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by

the following: "Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges
in an indictment and itb proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy
which attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups
committing acts in fuftherance of an overall plan". 51983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A.
Acts state the following: "The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting constitutional
rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal
prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective

for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual
rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from federal
interference", 18 U.S.C.A. 95 241,242; U.S.C.A. - Const. Art.2,53; Amend. 13, 14,5, 15, 5
2:42U.5.C.A. 55 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C,A.
Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and

crimes-within a 1O-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,
has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in
B state

t?

prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business
gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that
allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone
under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the

transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a

performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before
indictment. There is also a provision for private pafties to sue. A "person damaged in his business

or property" can sue one or more

"racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The

defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not
one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)
and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or
Sta

te

co u rt. http

//www. dealer-magazine. com/index. asp?article:4

Where RICO laws might be appliedl

Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extoftion and blackmail, one of the most
Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for

their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or
retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be
alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or
corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or
against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

References

RICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) Snopes.com: (21 December 2004).

Retrieved on 2006-03-26. 1.

External links
RICO Act from Cornell University'sU. S. Code database
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc suo 01 18_10_I_20_96.html) Detailof Tanya
Andersen's claim against Atlantic Records (htto://recordingindustrvvsoeoole.bloospot.com/2005/10/oregonriaa -victi m-fio hts-back- sues. html) Retrieved from
htto://en.wikioedia.orglwiki/Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Categories: Articles with
weasel words I United States federal legislation I Organized crime terminology

ts

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt

to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as
a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could
be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to
concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been
brought before the courts. These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of
limitations has run out.

Dated October 16th, 2015

Stanley J. Caterbone
Advanced Media Group, President and Owner
Pro Se Litigant, U.S. District Court & Pennsylvania Common Pleas Couft
Scaterbone@Live.com

1250 Fremont Street

PA 17603
7L7-669-2163
Lancaster,

tb

a ii.:qi'Il-:T

t,r'

t7

5'!*t ru (- {
LANCASTER

P Pol*ta/u'/'tun
/

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION.LAW

Stanley J, Caterbone

ItADlt-llDQ- >o)s
case No' lffi

PLAINTIFF

vs.

DEFENDANT

ORDER RE: MOTION TO PROCEED lN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND NOW, this

20--,

day of

the Petitione/s Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted as to the filing fees and costs.

BY THE COURT.

J,

t6

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LANCASTER

COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

tMxlno|Dotormv
Stanley J. Caterbone

PLAINTIFF
1 1

vs.

Gase

Lancaster City Police. et

al.,

No.

08-201 5

16S@06xx

DEFENDANT

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS & AFFIDAVIT

1.

I am the petitioner in the above matter and because of my financial condition am unable

pay

the fees and costs of prosecuting or defending this action or proceeding.

2.

am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay the-osts of

litigation.

3.

I represent that the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs

isrre

and correct:

a.) My Name

is:

Stanley J. Caterbone

My Address is:

1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster,

PA

17603

b.) Employment:
lf you are presently employed, state your:

Employer:

t1

Employe/s Address:

Salary or wages per month:

Type of work:
lf you are presently unemployed, state:

Date of last employment:

Salary or wages per month:
Type ofwork:

c.)

Please list any other income received within the past twelve months:
(Write the gross amount (before taxes) per month that you received and the months
you received this income,)
Business or profession:
Other selfcmployment:
lnterest:
Dividends:
Pension and annuities:
Social security benefits:
Support payments:
1.333.00/Past
Disability payments:

2 months

Unemployment compensation and/or supplemental benefits:

Workers' Compensation

?b

Public assistance:
Other:

d.) Other contributions to household support:

(Write the gross amount (before taxes) per month that you received and the months
you received this income.)
(Wife)(Husband) Name:
lf your (wife) (husband) is employed, please state

Employer:
Salary or wages per month:
Type ofwork:
Contributions from children

Contributions from parents:

Other contributions:

e.) Property owned:

cash: 1,500.00
Checking Account:
Savinos Account:

"' 400.00
'"'

Certificates of deposit:
1/4 of 80'000
Real estate (including home):

MotorVehiclg

yr*,

HondacRV ,Yr

$10.000.00

Cost: I@XXX
Stocks and bonds:

Amount

r-- 2w-,

Owed:

13,750.00

Unmarketable Securities, Pending Litigation See Atti

2l

Other:

f.)

Debts and obligations:

Mortgage:
Rent:

Loans:
Other:
See Attached

(Write all of your regular monthly bills, phone, utilities, cable, insurance, etc.)

g.) Persons dependent upon you for support:

(Wife/Husband) Name:
Children, if any:
Age:

Other persons:
Name:
Relationship:

4.

I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial

circumstances which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein.

ZL

5.

I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false

statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 . a.C.S. $ 4904, .elating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.

/o/ra/aatS
Date:

z3

Monthly obligations for Stanley J. Caterbone

In Forma Pauperis Application
re: Case No. 15-O6985 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

Utility Monthly Average

PP&L
UGI

57L.94
547.28

Comcast

s162.oo

Taxes

S2so.oo

Insurance

s43.7s
528.s8
s48.oo
s2.s0

Water/Sewer
Cell Phone
Majic Jack

Trash
sub-Total
Hosting
Supplies

Website

Office
Copy Services
and
Technology and

Printing

Security

517.50

56?155
SL5.00
550.00
535.00
550.00

Capitallmprovement 550.00

Loan
Medicare

Auto

5220.00
5120.00
MedicareSupplement 530.00

ffi
TOTAT MOTHTY EXPENSES

s1,241.55

zLl

Case 05-23059-ref Do

,rdfffie.#affirffi '.#la5lH**aisfr anDpr*rrhinrr,zoro

Strn I. Gatcrbone end Advancad Hdle Gnoup

Gare 1lo. O5-2!iO59

Baranesh.d

trnutty

1,

2O1O

k<g
GryArPq
sr I
t , I
n
\ Y'rS^rtgtcN

Grh

Bankchedring
Itd
soc*{ socurityt}ebitcatd
fnrodory
Accounts Recetvabtes
wactrovfa

rotrf

cumntar$tr

Propdty&O0nrA.lct3
Residence
HmraFumbhings
lgel DodgcPickUpDskota
Adrnncsd fr/lediaGroup Slock
Adnncod Mdb Grqrp Eqdpmnt

Litigntbnvatue
l{d Proprrly ad

OthorAnotr

lou

.'

-,

Pe--'- -!.ntll"ll-kgA

10,@

/ l>
, S , {*1
-ffi
2d
t-1,
tl'
lf*if,lh &
o.oo
c t e cu t' .,- |
#q$d*
|o|ipoc J". 01- 3l' ' .*nF
-r- |
L,*fp&"'
f

Xffi

0.00

| lr_al\
'd2l
>l' tt II

t\--

---iEAAqC
fSUUdSUX
,-,-

-J,-qQq.qO--

Xt06tUr05ilX

ilO$nIX

ro0dAr.or,

*FlilHlsl

Accounts pry$le
Citt Bank Credlt
Bank of
PayPal Buyer

912,111.93
$10,187.52
$1,809.80

Card
America
Credit
Disover
Bank of America
ChasdBank One
AAIA fin6nqialServices
A/A/A Financial Services
Wells Fargo Financial Services
Wells Fargo Financial Services
Fuhon Mortgage Services
Honda Financial Services
Beneficial
Comcast
Sprint
Capltol Blue Cross
Donegal t*futuallnsurance
Verizon
FedEx
pp&L
willow Run Veterinary Cllnic

a,-

,,

PENDING LITIGATION NO VALUE

AT THIS TIME, NON MARKETABLE

$3,743.10
$623.59
+238.35
$18'827.63
S1'585.97
f3,466.00
S0.00

$0.00
$12,369.70

$7,000.00
$1,813.11
$805.76
$32.00
$74.00
$26,00
941.38
$1,089.00
$74.00
twtrd-Fr.&

ffi ffp:r*$ss*li*;ml
Reorganizaffon Plan Page 30 of 31

cln*,r&t*d

riln*rr r** rxdhr.*t*nwdtm*"7,$64axnd

2s'

Case 05-23059-ref D

deds9]{aftLged Fetgd&y
Page 31 of 31'

Document

ft.- -. -afr

6b16* h"nBs seril{htfl r 1,

20 10

Stan J. Gatertone and Advanced Hedia Grcup

Caee llo. O5-23O59
Balance Sheet
hnulry 1.2O1O
Yamell Security Sysmms

$1,076.32
$25,000.00

Yolanda Catertone
Cingular Wireless

$s09.98
$4(X.8s
$2.82
$9.ss
$1,800.00
$120,33
$s9.9s
$41.92
$92.22
$906,49

Sovereing Bank
Porverf{et Global Commu nications
Windstream
tancaster County Probation
BMG Music Service

Micmsoft
Pacer Service Cenbr-U.S

West Rrblications
Salute Visa

I|EOIAAL BILUT
Lancaster Regional Medical Ctr
Conestoga Oral & Maxillolacial Assor
Anestesia Associates of lancaster,

SE Lancaster Health Cllnlc

AbbeWille Family Practice of LGH

Lancaster General Hospital
t-a ncaster Radiological Associates
HealthPort

lancaster Emergency Associates

TOTALEAI.A]IGE
re

$459.98
$1,259.00

$1,034.00
$12.ss
$149.00
$31,264.90
$s68.00
$61.17
$795.00

Charges are inflated; wrong; or

liability of another person or entity.

r1531211.16

Non-Contested

Total Uabilities

rll{1,557.97

Lor8Term Debt

$0.00

IIetWordr

{:r.rsl:d4

"cgitf.

Reorganization Plan Page 31 of 31

>b

,77

D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/0 . L4:01:54 Desc Main

oocurfi&ftlUtFfitro+ffi1 SJ&' 1 Date Filed: o4tBl2o11

Case 05-23059-ref
Case: a7-215't

PRECEDENTIAL
UMTED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR TIIE THIRD CIRCI.IIT

No.07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT
FOR T:IE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submined Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 17.20ll

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 4,

20ll)

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro se

Advanced Media Group
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

William Kanter, Esq.

Jeffiica J. Lee, Esq.
Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Room 7537
Deparfrnent of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-000 I

EE

Case 05-23059-ref D

33

Filed

04l04lLL

Entered 08/(

case: o7-21s1 oocurR&tl$ts1lo+d#&

2 otli&",

L4:0!:54

Desc Main

Date Filed: 0410412011

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.

Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the Court
Duane Monis LLP
1940 Route 70 East
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

OPIMON OF

TFTE

COURT

BARRY, Circuit Judee

This case involves an untimely notice of appeal to the
District Court after the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal, for
cause, of a Chapter 11 petition. The question before us is
whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 158(c)(2) and the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an untimely filing such as the
one at issue here deprives subsequent reviewing cotrtsJtere,
both the District Court and this Court--of jurisdiction over
the appeal. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we will
dismiss the instant appeal and remand to the District Court
with instnrctions to dismiss the appeal to it from the
Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I.

Background

Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone filed a Chapter I I

bankruptcy petition in May 2005. The United States Trustee
subsequently moved to dismiss the petition for cause, and the
Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 3,2006,
citing various substantive and procedural deficiencies.
u.s.c. $ 1112(b).

,See 11

The order of dismissal was mailed to Caterbone by

first class mail on October 5, 2006. On October 16, he sent a
notice of appeal by first class mail and elecfonic mail.
However, the notice of appeal was filed with the District
Conrt on October 19, rendering it untimely because it
occurred outside the ten-day window, then in place, for filing

??

Case 05-23059-ref D

case: or-21s1

33

04l04lLL

Entered 0B/0
3
oocu"PeB?'SB9?10+f,4899 $*b1' g
Frled

t4:0L:54

Desc Main

Date Filed: UlMl2011

of appeal. ^See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (2006).t It

is undisputed that Caterbone did not file a "request to extend
the time for filing a notice of appeal ... by written motioa .. .
before the time for filing a notice of appeal ha[d] expired,"
nor did the Bankruptcy Court grant such an extension
following "a motion filed not later than 20 days after the
expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal ... upon a
showing of excusable neglect." Id.8002(cX2).
a notice

Despite its untimely filing, Caterbone's appeal was

docketed in the District Court on November 14, and the
Trustee did not axgue that it was untimely. On March 15,
2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal, citing
Caterbone's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006,
which requires that a petitioner designate "items to be
included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues
to be presented." Caterbone appealed to this Cowt. Shortly
thereafter, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing, for
the first time, Caterbone's initial untimely notice of appeal,
and arguing that, as a result of the untimely filing, the Dishict
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Following various intervening events, including the

appointment of amicus curiae, the case is now before us. The
Trustee argues that, consistent with Bowles v. Russell, 551

t In amending Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), effective

December l, 2A09, to expand the time for filing a notice of

appeal to fourteen days, the Supreme Court's accompanying
Order provided that the amendment *shall govern in all
proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter cornmenced and,
insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending."
Supreme Court of the United States, Order Amending Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Mar. 26,2009). The Trustee
argues that the'Just and practicable" rationale is inapplicable
here. Moreover, the Trustee notes that Caterbone's notice of
appeal was dated, but not filed, on October 16, and argues,
persuasively in our view, that even if the expanded period
were to apply, the notice of appeal was still untimely because
it was filed the sixteenth day after entry of the Bankruptcy
Court's

order.

3o

Case 05-23059-ref D

case: or-21s1

33

Filed

04l04lLL

Entered 08/0
a
oocun?eonlJrdtBllo+f,#9
$*E"' +

t4:0I:54 Desc Main

Date Fifed: UlMnUl

U.S. 205 (2007), Section 158(cX2) established a mandatory,

jurisdictional deadline that statutorily encompasses Rule

8002(a)'s specified timeline for appealing the judgment of a
bankruptcy court, such that the timeline is not akin to a
freestanding, waivable "claim-processing rule" within the
meaning of Kontrick v. Ryan,540 U.S. 443 (2004). Amicus
argues similarly. Caterbone, on the other hand, elides the
Bov,les analysis and argues,inter alia,thathis untimely filing
should be addressed, and excused, under the standard of
"excusable neglect" set forth in Pioneer Inv. Sertts. Co. v.
BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship,507 U.S. 380 (1993).

For the reasons explained below, we hold that the

prescribed timeline within which an appeal from a bankruptcy
court must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional, thus
affrrming, in light of Bowles, the nrle that we applied in
Shareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3d
Cir. 1997).

II.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in this case, and we

must address its relevance both to the decision rendered by
the Disfrict Court, and to our review of that decision. Thus,
as an initial matter, we note that we have jurisdiction over the
final decision that the Disfrict Court rendered on Caterbone's
appeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. $ 158(dxl).
Our authority includes reviewing whether the District Court's
own exercise ofjurisdiction, per $ 158(a), was proper. That
is because "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a
court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or
waived[, such that courts] ... have an independent obligation
to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even
in the absence of a challenge from any pafty." Arbaugh v. Y
& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).

Ordinarily, we apply plenary review to final orders of

a district court sitting as an appellate court reviewing the
decision of a bankruptcy court. In re Carnegie Ctr. Assocs.,
129 F.3d 290,294 (3d Cir. 1997). However, following from

3I

Case 05-23059-ref D
Case: A7-2151

33

Flled

04l04lLl

Entered 08/0

oocunBfft$03?toa#699 s

$#: s

t4:0L:54

Desc Main

Date Fifed: O4l0/.l2011

our obligation to determine the threshold issue of subject

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514, and where,

as here, a party "contest[s] our jurisdiction and that of the

Distict Court, ... [w]e exercise de novo review over [the]
question[] of subject matterjurisdiction." Great W. Mining &
Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP,615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d
Cir. 2010). This is the case even where, again as here, a
district court "exercis[es its] jurisdiction" and dismisses a
cause of action for some other reason. Id. If our independent
review yields the conclusion that the District Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from the
Bankruptcy Court, the appropriate disposition is dismissal of
the appeal. In re Caribbean Tubular Corp.,8l3 F.2d 533,
535 (lst Cir. 1987) (holding that where it is found that a
district court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcy
court order, the court of appeals must dismiss the appeal to
and remand to the distict court with instnrctions to vacate its
order and to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court).

i!

III. Discussion
An appeal from a decision of a bankruptcy court is
subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. $ 158(cX2), which
provides that appeals "shall be taken in the same manner as
appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts
of appeals from the disftict courts and in the time provided by
Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." When Caterbone filed
his appeal, that rule provided, in relevant part, that "notice of
appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date
of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from."
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (2006).
Although Kontrick affirmed as "'a)domatic"' the
proposition that requirements contained in a bankruptcy rule
alone are not jurisdictional (and, hence, are waivable), 540
U.S. at 453 (citation omitted), Section 158 provides the
statutory basis for the courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy

appeals. See 28 U.S.C. $ 158(a) & (d) (specifrng

circumstances of "district courts['] ... jurisdiction to hear
appeals" and the "courts of appeals['] ... jurisdiction").

Because Section 158 also specihes the time within which an

3L

Case 05-23059-ref D

case:

or-21s1

33

Filed

04l04lLI

Entered 08/0
oocunB$fr$03?toafs699 6
o

SS'

appeal must be

L4:01:54 Desc

Main

Date Filed: 041M12011

taken-i.e., *in the time provided by Rule

8002"-that requirement is jurisdictional. As

Bowles

clarified, both acknowledging and distinguishing Kontrick,

"the taking of an appeal within [a statutorily] prescribed time
is mandatory and jurisdictional." 551 U.S. at 209 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, "failure
to file [a] notice of appeal in accordance with the statute
therefore deprive[s] ... [courts] of jurisdiction[, and bars a
par{y from] ... rely[ing] on forfeiture or waiver to excuse [a]
lack of compliance with the statute's time limitations." Id. at
21 3

(citation omitted).

Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that

the time within which an appeal must be file4 the
incorporation of that rule renders its requirement
and, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable. As the

specifies
statutory
statutory
Supreme
Court recently observed, while *the distinction between
jnrisdictional conditions [i.e.,
la Bowles] and claimprocessing rules [i.e., d la Kontrickl car^ be confusing in
practice[,] ... Bowles stands for the proposition that context,
including th[e] Coutt's interpretation of similar provisions in
many years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a

requirement .N jr.risdictional." Reed Elsevier,

Muchnick, l30 S. Ct. 1237, 1243, 124748 (2010).

Inc.

y.

Beyond the fact that the statutory text of Section

158(cX2) incorporates a time condition, historical context
also supports our holding. Prior to Kontrick anrd Bowles, we
regarded Rule 8002(a)'s time limit for filing a notice of
appeal as jrnisdictional. See Shareholders, 109 F.3d at 879;
Whitemere Dev. Corp., fnc. v. Clerry Hill Twp.,786 F.2d
185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals, Inc.,'155
F.2d 309, 31 I (3d Cir. 1985). Kontick-and" later, Eberhart
v. United States,546 U.S. 12 (2005farguably provided the
opportunity to question whether this rule remained correct.
That being said, a careful reading of Kontrick, Bowles, and
Reed Elsevier confirms that the rule we affrrmed in
Shareholders, Witemere, and Universal Minerals remains
the rule today.

In holding that time

constraints

for objecting to

33

Case 05-23059-ref D
Case: 07-2151

33

Filed

04l04ltl

Entered 08/0

oocunBfff;U05flo+sB6gg z Hrffi' z

1,4:0L:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: 041A412011

in

discharge
bankruptcy are non-jurisdictional "claimprocessing rules," Kontrick noted that Congress's statutory
grant ofjurisdiction to the courts to adjudicate discharges in
bankruptcy contains no reference to a time condition. 540
U.S. at 4s2-s3 (citing 28 U.S.c. $ 157(bxl), (b)(2)(I), and
(bX2XD).'z To the contary, in holding that the statutorilyprescribed time provision for filing an appeal in a federal
habeas corpus proceeding ls jurisdictional, Bowles expressly
stated: "Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice
of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." 551
U.S. at 214. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that Arbaugh
could be read to state that a clear statement rule applies to
Congress's identification

of a

statutory limitation

as

jurisdictionalo see 546 U.S. at 515-16," Reed Elsevier more

recently clarified that, again dla Bowles,

the relevant question ... is not ... whether [a

particular statutory provision] itself has long
2

Likewise, rn Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 21, the Court

concluded that time provisions in the Federal Rules of
Criminal hocedure were non-jurisdictional, and thus
waivable. ln Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, the Court conoluded
that a numerical provision affecting Title VII claims, but
which was separate from Title VII's jurisdictional provision,
thereby was not jurisdictional.
3 As the
Court stated inArbaugh:
[W]e think it the sounder course to refrain from
constricting $ l33l or Title VII's jurisdictional
provision" and to leave the ball in Congress'
court. If the Legislature clearly states that a
threshold limitation on a statute's scope shall
count as jurisdictional, then courls and litigants
will be duly instructed and will not be left to
wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does
not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as
jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction
as nonjurisdictional in character.
546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citations and reference
omitted).
7

3V

33

04l04lLL Entered 08/0

case: ar-21s1 oocun?&Ql0FJllo+fffi8 $ff", s

Case 05-23059-ref D

Filed

.74:0t:54

Desc Main

Date Fifed:04104'12011

been labeled jwisdictional, but whether the type

of limitation that [it] imposes is one that is

properly ranked as jurisdictional absent an
express designation. The statutory limitation in
Bowles was of a type that we had long held did
"speak in jurisdictional terms" even absent a
'Jurisdictional" label, and nothing about [that
provision's] text or context, or the historical
treatment of that type of limitation, justified a
departure from this view.
130 S.

A.at1248.

It is evident, in light of Shareholders,lY'hitemere, and

Universal Minerals, that we "ha[ve] long held" that Section
158(c)(2)'s incorporation of the filing timeline specified in
Rule 8002(a) "speak[s] in jurisdictional terms[,] even absent a
jurisdictional label, and [that] nothing about [its] text or
context, or [itsJ historical treafinent ... justifre[s] a departrne
from this view." See Reed Elsevier, 130 S. Ct. at 1248.
Because it was both prior to and shortly after Reed Elsevier
that we affirmed in non-precedential opinions that the time
requirement for filing a bankruptcy appeal is jurisdictional,
we now take the occasion to so hold in a precedential
opinion.a Doing so comports with the fact that, unlike the
rules that Eberhart andKontrick held were non-jurisdictional,
Rule 8002(a)'s time limit is rooted in a congressionallyenacted statute. ,See Fed.
Bankr. P. 8002, advisory
(noting
committee note
that "th[e] rule is an adaptation of'
Fed. R. App.P.a(a)); see also Bowles,55l U.S. at2l2,2l3
("[A] statute-based filing period for civil cases is
jurisdictional. . . . Because Congress decides whether federal
courts can hear cases at all, it can also determine when" and
under what conditions, federal courts can hear them. Put
another woy, the notion
subject-matter jurisdiction
obviously extends to ... when Congress prohibits federal
courts from adjudicating an otherwise legitimate class of

of

For purposes of reference only, we note In re Taylor,

343 F. App'x 753,755 (3d Cir. 2009), and In re Jacobowitz,
384 F. App'x 93,94 (3d Cir.2010).
8

3<

Case 05-23059-ref D

case: o7-21s1

33

t4:0I:54

04l04lLI

Entered 08/0
e
oocum%%tu&3?Io+feB99 $#g%' g
Filed

Desc Main

Date Filed: MlO4l2A11

from final judgmenl.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Taking all
of this into consideration, we conclude that the rule we
enunciated in Shareholders rerrrains good law.5
cases after a certain period has elapsed

Given the fact that subject matter jurisdiction over

Caterbone's appeal to the Distict Court wff, and is,
lacking-and that jurisdictional defect also bars us from
reviewing the merits of his appeal le us-\Ms need not address
the Court's dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute.
Nor need we address Caterbone's argument that his
"excusable neglecf' saves his untimely filing, given the clear
text of Rule 8002 and the guidance of Sharelnlders:

Rule 8002(c) ... requires that even in cases of

excusable neglect, the issue must be raised and
the appeal filed within the ... window of Rule
8002 (Rule 8002(a)'s [timeline] forthe appeal +
8002(c)'s [timeline] for the extension). The
rule does not allow a party to claim excusable
neglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired.
109 F.3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). Finally, we
decline to address Caterbone's remaining arguments, because
they do not pertain to the threshold issue ofjurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the instant
appeal and remand to the Distict Court with instructions to
dismiss Caterbone's appeal from the Bankruptcy Cor.rt for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Our conclusion is consistent with the holdings of our

sister circuits ttrat have affirmed that the filing timeline for
bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. See In re Latntre, 605
F.3d 830, 837 (10ttt Cir. 2010); In re Wiersma,483 F.3d 933,
938 (9ttt Cir.2007); In re B.A.R. Entm't Mgmt., Inc.,2010
WL 4595554 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing In re Siemon,
421F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)).
9

3G

Case 05-23059-ref

D 33

Filed

04l04lLL

Entered

08/0 L4:0I:54 Desc Main

case: 07-2151 oocufiSffUFJ{rO+Edflftto p[ot'

Date Fited: uto4t2o11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR TtM fi{IRD CIRCTIIT

No.07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,

Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TTIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)
Disrict Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 3a.1(a)

March 17.2011

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTII, Circuit Judees

JUDGMENT

This cause came to be heard on the appeal from the United States Disfrict Court
for the Eastem District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on March 17,2011.

After consideration of all the contentions raised- it is

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and this
matter is remanded to the Distict Court with instnrctions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal

from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No costs. All in
accordance with the Opinion of the Court.

37

D 33

Filed 04l04ltl Entered

Case 05-23059-ref
case: 07-2',51 OocuRgfitlnoffit104869&+1

08/0

Fff:Z

L4:0L:54 Desc

Main

Date Fited: O4tMt2O11

ATTEST:

/V Marcia M, Waldrorl
Clerk
Dated: April 4,2011

3(

Case 05-23059-ref

33

Filed

04l04ltt

Entered 08/(

case: a7-21s1 oocufigfitlt6${toaBS$&12 FafE: r

L4:07:54 Desc

Main

Date Fifed:0410r',12011

OFFICE OF TI{E CLERK

MARCIAM.WALDRON

IJmrBo Surns Counr or ApPEALs

TELEPHONE

2I4OO IJNITED STATES COI,JRTHOUSE

2t5-597-2995

6Ot MARKETSTREET

CLERK

PHILADELPHTA"

PA I9IOI5.I790

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

April4,20ll

Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone

1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603

Jeftica J. Lee, Esq.

United States Department of Justice

Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.

Duane Morris
1940 Route 70 East
Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

RE: In re: Stanley Caterbone

Case Number:07-2151

District Case Number: 06-cv-05012

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

April 04, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P.36.
Today,

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forttr in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

3?

Case 05-23059-ref

33

Filed O4lO4lLL Entered

08/r

case: o7-21s1 OocuRBfitlt63t104Btg8y'3 gaffi,

Time for Filing:

14 days after entry ofjudgment.
45 days after entry ofjudgment in

.74:0L:54

Desc Main

Date Fited: a4n4DO11

civil case if the United States is a pany.

Page Limits:
l5 pages

Attachments:
A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are permitted without
first obtaining leave from the Court.
Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en banc rehearing.If separate petitions forpanel
rehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will
be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not
provide for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the event that the ptition
seeking only panel rehearing is denied.

A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.RApp.P. 39 must file an itemized and verified
bill of costs within 14 days from the entry ofjudgmnt. The bill of costs must be submitted on
the proper form which is available on the court's website.

A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.R.App.P. 41.
Review of this Court's final decision may be pursued in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and

requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

Very

tuly

yours,

/z1r',.... h. t/ot/rr*,
Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By: Charlene/jk
Case Manager
267-2994923

1o

J:i:n':i-\;; ;:1 4-'*"fr:

fi{iir,+.
.,ri-Ji. ,'"

'

'