- 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
decisions.
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