- 7 -
although the top portions of the digits in question are
indecipherable, he was certain that the postmark date was “30 MAR
1999”.5
Even if we were to assume, however, that the envelope in
question bears no U.S. postmark or that the date of the postmark
is illegible, petitioner has nevertheless failed to carry her
burden of proving that the petition was timely filed. The
private postage meter mark shows at most that the envelope might
have been prepared for mailing on March 29, 1999, not that it was
actually mailed that day. The only other evidence that
petitioner has adduced is the uncorroborated testimony of her
counsel, Sallie Gladney (Gladney), who claims to have delivered
the petition, along with a stack of other mail, to the 24-hour
U.S. post office located at Bush International Airport, in
Houston, Texas, on March 29, 1999, at “approximately” 11:30 p.m.
She also testified, however, that she did not remember the exact
time. Her own testimony, therefore, does not exclude the
5 Petitioner argues that the two digits in question could
conceivably be something other than “30”, but has advanced no
alternative possibility that is meaningful in the instant factual
context. In particular, petitioner does not argue, and we do not
believe, that the digits could realistically be construed as
“29”, to corroborate her claim that the petition was mailed on
Mar. 29, 1999. Petitioner suggests that the first digit could be
construed as a zero. If so, the postmark would have been made in
the first 9 days of March, a scenario that is inconsistent with
petitioner’s own contention that she mailed the petition on Mar.
29, and that is unlikely in light of the Court’s receipt of the
petition by U.S. mail on Apr. 5, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011