Carl J. D. Bauman and Margaret A. Bauman - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          solely on the equitable consideration that "good cause" exists              
          for us to vacate the decisions because the U.S. Postal Service              
          failed to deliver the decision in docket No. 37669-85 that was              
          served on Mr. Manley, and because Mr. Self failed to inform them            
          that he had been served with the decision in docket No. 38099-85.           
          It is petitioners' contention that they will be "severely                   
          prejudiced" if the Court denies their motions for leave, because            
          to do so would preclude their opportunity to appeal the                     
               Petitioners' argument is without merit and must be rejected.           
          The Clerk of the Court properly served the decisions in these               
          cases.5  Rule 21(b)(1) and (2).  Both decisions became final on             
          December 23, 1996, and we are without jurisdiction to alter their           
          finality.  It should be noted that, while the District Courts               
          have, in prescribed circumstances, been granted authority to                
          vacate a final judgment of which a party failed to receive                  
          notice, see 28 U.S.C. sec. 2107(c)(1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d);            
          Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), there is no similar grant of authority             
          in Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or in                
          section 7483 with respect to this Court.  On the contrary, rule             
          14 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that Rule           

               5Service is complete upon mailing, and the Court's records             
          indicate that the Clerk mailed the decision in docket No. 37669-            
          85 by certified mail to Mr. Manley at his correct business                  
          address.  The Court's records also indicate that the U.S. Postal            
          Service did not return that decision to the Clerk.                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011