Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Seth Williams, Petitioner v. United States

;

t

a

y

APPENDIA A

i'

;

V

\

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 22-2539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SETH WILLIAMS,

Appellant

On Appeal from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 1-10-cr-00341 -001)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

Present: CHAGARES, ChiefJudge, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR.,

SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, and

FREEMAN, Circuit Judges.

The petition for rehearing filed by Appellant in the above-entitled case having

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the

other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who

concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the judges of the

circuit in regular service not having voted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the

Court en banc, is denied.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.

Circuit Judge

Dated: March 13, 2023

Sb/cc: Seth Williams

Christian T. Haugsby, Esq.

N

;

APPENDIX B

s

j

\

\

\

i

i

i

\

4

\

l

*•

Case: 22-2539

Document: 9-1

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/03/2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT

United States Court of Appeals

TELEPHONE

CLERK

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

215-597-2995

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

February 3, 2023

Christian T. Haugsby

Office of United States Attorney

Middle District of Pennsylvania

228 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 11754

220 Federal Building and Courthouse

Harrisburg, PA 17108

Seth Williams

Coleman FC1 Low

P.O. Box 1031

Coleman, FL 33521

RE: USA v. Seth Williams

Case Number: 22-2539

District Court Case Number: l-10-cr-00341-001

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, February 03, 2023 the Court issued a case dispositive order in the above-captioned

matter which serves as this Court's judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 36.

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 forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.

LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

Time for Filing:

14 days after entry of judgment.

45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.

Form Limits:

3900 words if produced by a computer, with a certificate of compliance pursuant to Fed. R. App.

P. 32(g).

15 pages if hand or type written.

Case: 22-2539

Document: 9-1

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/03/2023

Attachments:

A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only.

Certificate of service.

Certificate of compliance if petition is produced by a computer.

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. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(b)(3),

if separate petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated

as a single document and will be subject to the form limits as set forth in Fed. R. App. P.

35(b)(2). 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 petition seeking only panel

rehearing is denied.

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 truly yours,

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

By: s/Laurie

Case Manager

267-299-4936

Case: 22-2539

Document: 9-2

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/03/2023

CLD-067

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C.A. No. 22-2539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

SETH WILLIAMS, Appellant

(M.D. Pa. Crim. No. l-10-cr-00341-001)

Present:

GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

Submitted are:

a)

By the Clerk is the within appeal for possible summary action under

3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and Chapter 10.6 of the Court’s Internal

Operating Procedures and for a determination as to whether a

certificate of appealability is required;

(2)

By the Clerk for possible dismissal due to lack of timely filing;

(3)

Appellant’s response; and

(4)

Appellant’s motion under Rule 36

in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully,

Clerk

_________________________________ORDER_________________________________

Appellant Seth Williams appeals from an order entered by the District Court on

July 27, 2022, granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct his judgment of

sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. First, we decline to dismiss

this appeal for lack of timely filing, as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) is not

jurisdictional where the Government has not raised the issue of timeliness on appeal and

Williams’ notice of appeal was filed just one day late. See United States v. Muhammud.

701 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012): see also United States v. Mitchell. 518F.3d740, 751

Case: 22-2539

Document: 9-2

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/03/2023

(10th Cir. 2008) (declining to sua sponte dismiss a criminal appeal filed “one day late”).

However, we summarily affirm the District Court’s order, as this appeal presents no

substantial question. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent that Williams sought to

correct a clerical error in his judgment, the District Court appropriately did so, and to the

extent Williams sought any other form of relief from his sentence, “Rule 36 provides no

basis to correct substantive errors in [a] sentence.” See United States v. Bennett, 423

F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2005). In light of this disposition, we deny appellant’s pending

motion. We need not decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability because one is

not required for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).

By the Court,

s/Joseph A. Greenaway. Jr.

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 3, 2023

Lmr/cc: Christian T. Haugsby, Esq.

Seth Williams

2

J

i

\

[

APPENDIX C

\

/

s

I

t

i

4

i»

;

*

•A

uase: 22-2539

Document: 12-1

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/21/2023

CLD-067

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

C.A. No. 22-2539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS.

SETH WILLIAMS, Appellant

(M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1-10-cr-00341-001)

Present:

GREENAWAY, JR., MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

Submitted are:

(1)

By the Clerk is the within appeal for possible summary action under

3rd Cir. LAR 27.4 and Chapter 10.6 of the Court’s Internal

Operating Procedures and for a determination as to whether a

certificate of appealability is required;

(2)

By the Clerk for possible dismissal due to lack of timely filing;

(3)

Appellant’s response; and

(4)

Appellant’s motion under Rule 36

in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully,

Clerk

________ __________ ____________ ORDER________________________________

Appellant Seth Williams appeals from an order entered by the District Court on

July 27, 2022, granting in part and denying in part his motion to correct his judgment of

sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. First, we decline to dismiss

this appeal for lack of timely filing, as Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) is not

jurisdictional where the Government has not raised the issue of timeliness on appeal and

Williams notice of appeal was filed just one day late. See United States v, MuhammnH

701 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012); see also United States v, Mitchell 518 F.3d 740, 751

Case: 22-2539

Document: 12-1

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/21/2023

(10th Cir. 2008) (declining to sua sponte dismiss a criminal appeal filed “one day late”).

However, we summarily affirm the District Court’s order, as this appeal presents

no

substantial question. See 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. To the extent that Williams sought to

correct a clerical error m his judgment, the District Court appropriately did so, and to the

extent Williams sought any other form of relief from his sentence, “Rule 36 provides no

basis to correct substantive errors in [a] sentence.” See United States v. Bennett. 423

F.3d 271, 278 (3d Cir. 2005). In light of this disposition, we deny appellant’s pending

motion. We need not decide whether to issue a certificate of appealability because one is

not required for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).

By the Court,

s/Joseph A, Greenaway. Jr.

Circuit Judge

Dated: February 3, 2023

Lmr/cc: Christian T. Haugsby, Esq.

Seth Williams

c

o**!.0'* pf

\

k

V'J

c

X

ill

Certified^!

of a forift^J

Teste

V.

VT

Afy • * o*

I

v.

'i

pcmjy §fid issued in lieu

March 71, 7071

.fr

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

2

4

i

ft

J

APPENDIX D

*

Vw

f

f

•>

4

Case: 22-2539

Document: 12-2

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/21/2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

PATRICIA S. DODSZUWEIT

United States Court of Appeals

TELEPHONE

CLERK

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

601 MARKET STREET

PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790

215-597-2995

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

March 21, 2023

Mr. Peter J. Welsh, Clerk

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Ronald Reagan Federal Building

228 Walnut Street

Harrisburg, PA 17108

RE: USAv. Seth Williams

Case Number: 22-2539

District Court Case Number: l-10-cr-00341-001

Dear District Court Clerk:

Enclosed herewith is the certified copy of the order in the above-captioned case(s). The certified

order is issued in lieu of a formal mandate and is to be treated in all respects as a mandate.

Counsel are advised of the issuance of the mandate by copy of this letter. The certified order is

also enclosed showing costs taxed, if any.

Very truly yours,

Patricia S. Dodszuweit, Clerk

By: s/ Kirsi

Case Manager

267-299-4911

cc: Seth Williams

Christian T. Haugsby, Esq.

Additional material

from this filing is

available in the

Clerk's Office.