United States v. William Green , 656 F. App'x 856 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50563
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00938-JM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM JOHN GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
William John Green appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his motion
for reconsideration, and his request for copies. We dismiss.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
As Green concedes, his appeal from the denial of his request for copies is
moot in light of the district court’s July 28, 2015, order granting his request. See
NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc. v. Judicial Council of Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068
(9th Cir. 2007) (“A case is moot on appeal if no live controversy remains at the
time the court of appeals hears the case.”).
Because the denial of Green’s motion for an extension of time to file a
section 2255 motion is neither a final order nor an appealable collateral order, we
lack jurisdiction to review that denial and the district court’s denial of
reconsideration. Generally, this court may only entertain appeals from final
decisions of the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s orders
denying Green’s motions are not final decisions. See Midland Asphalt Corp. v.
United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (“[A] final judgment is normally deemed
not to have occurred until there has been a decision by the District Court that ends
the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Nor do the orders qualify
for review under the collateral order doctrine. “[T]he collateral order doctrine
applies only if: 1) the collateral order conclusively resolved the disputed question;
2) review will resolve an important issue that is completely separate from the
merits of the action; and 3) the issue will essentially be unreviewable on appeal
2 14-50563
from a final judgment.” United States v. Decinces, 808 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir.
2015). The orders regarding Green’s motion for an extension of time do not meet
the first or third prongs of this test. First, because the orders were entered before
the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations for filing a section 2255
motion, they did not “conclusively resolve” the question of timeliness. Second,
Green remains free to file a section 2255 motion and, if the district court dismisses
it as untimely, he may appeal that determination; accordingly, the issue is not
“effectively unreviewable” on direct appeal. We therefore lack jurisdiction over
this appeal.
Green’s motion to amend and supplement his reply brief is granted. The
amendment-supplement to the reply brief, received on June 27, 2016, is deemed
filed. Green’s remaining motions are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
3 14-50563