U.S. v. Gibson, 77-1630

Decision Date05 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-1630,77-1630
Citation568 F.2d 111
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Samuel GIBSON, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Ragnhild Anne Westby, St. Paul, Minn., on brief, for appellant.

Andrew W. Danielson, U. S. Atty. and Mel I. Dickstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., on brief, for appellee.

Before HEANEY, STEPHENSON and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Gibson and Rafeal Wofford were convicted of unlawfully distributing heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have affirmed Wofford's conviction. United States v. Wofford, 562 F.2d 582 (8th Cir. 1977). Gibson argues on appeal that the trial court improperly joined for trial both the codefendants and the separate counts of the indictment. He also argues that the trial court improperly excluded certain testimony aimed at impeaching a key government witness.

We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Stewart v. Bishop, 403 F.2d 674, 677 (8th Cir. 1968). The trial court imposed sentence and issued the judgment on April 21, 1977, but Gibson did not file a notice of appeal until August 12, 1977. Gibson's counsel did file a motion for an order for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on May 3, 1977. The motion was granted on August 12, 1977.

F.R.A.P. 4(b) requires that in a criminal case a notice of appeal shall be filed in the District Court within ten days after the entry of judgment. The District Court may extend this time for a period not to exceed thirty days if the defendant shows excusable neglect. Taking an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. June,503 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1974).

Although the affidavit accompanying Gibson's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis was sufficient to constitute notice of appeal, see F.R.A.P. 3(c); Alley v. Dodge Hotel, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 320, 323, 501 F.2d 880, 883 (1974); Johnson v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 4, 5 n.6, 405 F.2d 1072, 1073 n.6 (1968), the notice was not filed within ten days after entry of judgment. The notice of appeal was filed within the thirty-day extension period allowed by F.R.A.P. 4(b), but the trial court made no express finding of excusable neglect. However, such a finding may be inferred since the trial court granted the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See United States v. Wade, 467 F.2d 1226, 1228 (8th Cir. 1972), cert. denied,410 U.S. 933, 93 S.Ct. 1384, 35 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). We conclude that the notice of appeal was timely filed. We turn to the substantive issues.

Gibson's arguments regarding improper joinder and severance are adequately answered in United States v. Wofford, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • U.S. v. Long
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 22, 1990
    ...circumstances, his action could arguably be construed as an implicit finding of excusable neglect. See, e.g., United States v. Gibson, 568 F.2d 111, 112 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (concluding that trial judge implicitly found excusable neglect when he granted motion for leave to appeal in ......
  • U.S. v. Lucas, 78-1347
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 26, 1979
    ...of a notice of appeal by a district court is tantamount to the granting of the requisite extension of time. See United States v. Gibson, 568 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Williams, 508 F.2d 410 (8th Cir. 1974). See also Salazar v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, ......
  • State v. Buman
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 19, 2021
    ...have the right—indeed, the obligation [to exclude evidence in order] to guard against juror confusion...."); United States v. Gibson , 568 F.2d 111, 112 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (holding that the issue of defendant's violation of methadone program regulations was a collateral matter to ......
  • Westcott v. Crinklaw
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 29, 1995
    ...was collateral and, therefore, the district court was within its discretion in excluding the evidence. See United States v. Gibson, 568 F.2d 111, 112 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (holding that excluding evidence on collateral matters is within the trial court's discretion). Crinklaw's testim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT