Can(

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I-ANCASTER COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

STANLEY]. CATERBONE MD-1108-2015

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police DepartmentI.ANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTDETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police DepartmentOFFICER WILLIAMSOFFICER BINDERUP

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURToRDER DATED SEPTEMBER 28, 2015

AND NOW on this 18th day of October 2015, Petitioner, Stanley Caterbone, appearing pro

s€, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania the ORDER dated the 28th day of

September, 2015 by the Honorable Dennis Reinaker for the Petition for Review. The ORDER states

the foflowing: *AND NOW, this 28th day of Septemberr 2OLS, the Court has examined thePetition for Review of Private Criminal Gomplaint. The Court finds no basis which tooverturn the decision disapproving the filing of criminal charges".

The Petitioner cites Case No. MD 879-2007 specifically the ORDER dated 27th day of

November, 2OO7 bV then President Judge Louis J. Farina which states the following: *AND NOW,

this 27th day of November, 2OA7, upon consideration of the Petition for Review ofPrivate Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that theDistrict Attorney's refusal to approve the private complaint due to "insufficientevidence"', obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether thecomplaint establishes a prima facie case, see, Michaels v. Barrasse, 681 A.2d 1362 (Pa,

Super. 1996), and In re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wilson ll., 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super.

2OO5), the Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition withsufficient specificity to identify the information relied upon and lo explain theGommonwealth's decision to disapprove the filing of Petitioner's private criminalcomplaint".

The Petitioner will argue that this same "de novo" review must be applied to this Petition

for Review according to the case law cited above.

vs.

Plaintiff requests that this appeal be filed under the rule 552 A) In Forma Pauperis under

the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Verification Statement, Application, and Argument

for Approval is attached.

Date: October 18, 2015

1250 Fremont StreetLancaste[ PA L7603777-669-2t63scaterbone@live.com

www. a mg g loba lenterta i n mentg rou p.com

n

'?-'

' j,ta"i ;---'-

", '.li

3

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIACRIMINAL

STANLEY J. CATERBONEANd ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP

vs.

LANCASTER CITY POLICE. ET. AL

MD-l108-201s

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of September,20l5, the Court has examined the Petition for

Review of Private Criminal Complaint. The Court finds no basis upon which to overturn the

decision disapproving the filing of criminal charges as requested.

I certity this document to be filedin the Lancaster County Otfice ofthe Glerk of the Courts. --, /l-S$f,Wri!r'.

-*-*s:ttffr // / /*-ti,/-.'/!h!q:L1-'g'',- ,//- 3 k=ll?.!:'l

?..t lllt!e: Il,E9iirt*s' .r:t.5i ,/f-.:e-.--:l*1t 74:-.-T.-- / t

W#Ei€.*'" l/ Joshua G, Parsons-4ffij:xiru- Glerk of the courts

BY T}IE COURT:

/S/DEITINIS REIiJAKERpReS.JUDGE

DENNIS E. REINAKERPRESIDENT JUDGE

fBEHFsuqg=EiE=

Attest:

Copies to:

Stanley Caterbone, 1250 Fremont St., Lancaster, PA 17603Chief Michael Landis, District Attomey's Office

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFLANCAQIE&

-COU

NTY, PENNSYLVAN IA

Stanley J. Caterbone

elru tptz_ /) r /t 9oJcu4r*|Fts*fiqt#

Case No. <frffi

PLAINTIFF

vs.

htcmr*C,ry/o,,9nDEFENDANT €T ,/,L

; B o{r,-r,F3R g iur, -v :x :Euq,:E=F.-. \-cr - j

-l:<qu;-oH

ORDER RE; MOT|ON T0 PR0CEED tN FORMA pAUpERIS

AND NOW, this bt day of

DcxrsP.Proceed In Forma Pauperis i s.

I certify this document to be filedin the Lancaster County Office of

Jcshua G. ParsonsClcrk of the Courls

,2016 ,the Petitioner's Motion to

BY THE COURT,

. "'(1

b

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFDOCKET

LANCASTER COUNTY

Docket Number: CP-36-MD-0001 1 08-201 5

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

In Re: Stanley J. Caterbone

CASEilFORTANONDate Filed: 0912412015

Oriqinatinq Docket No:

Final lssuinq Authoritv:

Arrestino Officer:

Case Local Number(s)

Motions

Page 1 of 2

Judqe Assiqned:

9]N:Initial lssuinq Authoritv:

Arresting Aqencv:

ComplainVlncident #:

Case Local Number Tvpe(s)

Case Status: Closed

f nitiation Date: 0912412015

LOTN:

Date Of Birth:

Alias Name

Caterbone, Stanley Jay

Caterbone, Stanley Joseph

8Tf,TU8 NFORtATlOlrlStatus Date Processinq Status

0912912015 Completed

0912412015 Awaiting Disposition

PETMONER II{FORTATIOII071'1511958 Citv/State/Zip: Lancaster, PA 17603

Participant Tvpe

Petitioner

corilotsTEALTH 0t FoRtA'noNName:

Supreme Court No:

CASEPARNdPAI{T8Name

Caterbone, Stanley J.

ATTORNEYIITFORNATION

Name:

Seouence Number

4

CP Filed Date

09t24t2015

Suoreme Court No:

Rep. Status:

Phone Number(s):

" ENTRIESDocument Date Filed Bv

Caterbone, Stanley J.

Caterbone, Stanley J.

Reinaker, Dennis E.

Informa Pauperis Petition/Petition for Review

1 09t29t2015

Petition for Review of Private Criminal Complaint

2 09t29t2015

Order Denyrng Petrtion for Review of Pnvate Crimrnal Complaint

cPcMs 9082 Print6d'10/06/2015

Recent entries made in the court filing offices may not be immediately reflecled on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial

System of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delay€d

data, enors or omissrons on these reports Docket Sheet information should not be used in place ofa criminal history background check which can

only be provided by the Pennsyfuanra State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply wrth the provrsions of the Crimrnal Hrstory Record

Informatron Act may be sub.iect to civil liability as set forth In 18 Pa C.S Sectron 9183.

7

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OFDOCKET

LANCASTER COUNTY

Docket Number: CP-36-MD-0001 108-201 5

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET

In Re: Stanley J. Caterbone

EITRIESDocument Date

Motions

Page 2 ol 2

Sequence Number

J

CP Filed Date

09t29t2015

Filed Bv

Reinaker, Dennis E.

Order Denying Motion lo Proceed In Forma Pauperis

cPcMs 9082 Pnntsd.10/06/2015

Recent entries made In the court filing offices may not be immedrately reflected on these docket sheets. Neither the courts of the Unified Judicial

System of the Commonw€alth of P€nnsylvania nor the Administrative Office of Pennsylvanra Courts assume any liability for inaccurate or delayed

data, enors or omissrons on these reports. Docket Sheet information should not be used in place of a criminal history background check which can

only be provided by the Pennsylvania State Police. Moreover an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Criminal History Record

lnformation Act may be subject to civil liability as set forth in 18 Pa.C.S. Section 9183

q

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANTACRIMINAL

STANLEY J. CATERBONE

VS.

TONY FREEI'ANNOBLE REAL ESTATEGREG MILLANSI-{ELBY SHEPROCENTRAL PENN SERVICES

NO. MD 87e-29A7

ORDER

BY THE COURT:

LOUISJ.FARINAPRES.JUDGE

LOUIS J. FARIMPRESIDENT JUDGE

AND NOW ,thts A1 dayof November, 2}O7,upon consideration of the Petition

for Review of Private Criminal Complaint and Brief in Support thereof, and it appearing that

the DistrictAttorney's refusaf to approve the private comptaint due to 'insufficient evirCence"r,

obligates the Court to conduct a "de novo" review to determine whether the complaint

establishesaprimafaciecase, see, Michaelsy.8armsse,681A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. 1996),

and ln re Private Criminal Compl. Of Wlson Il, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005), the

Commonwealth is therefore directed to file an answer to the Petition with sufficient specificity

to identify the information relied upon and to explain the Commonwealth's decision to

disapprove the filing of Petltlone/s private crirninalcomplaint.

I certiff this documont to be fitedIn the Lancaster CountY Otfice ofthe Clerk of the Courts.

lChief County Detective Landis, who reported the District Attomey's position by letterciated November 2,2007 , stated "Our investigation failed to find any criminal intent on the partof the defendants, . . .'

lo

'.{fs'i{-aPJ$e.'- "''i.d.".

lrl

Stanley J. Caterbone, Petitioner

IN THE COURT OF coMMoN PLEAS OF LANCASTER COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

MD-1108-2015STANLEY J. CATERBONE

vs,

KIETH SADLER, Chief, Lancaster City Police DepartmentLANCASTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTDETECTIVE CLARK BEARINGER, Lancaster City Police DepartmentOFFICER WILLIAMSOFFICER BINDERUP

bu4,+wT LtrsAPPEAL FOR RECONSIDERATION fOT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

AND NOW on this 16th day of October, 2015 I, STANLEY J. CATERBONE and ADVANCED

MEDIA GROUP, Petitioners, appearing pro se, do hereby file the Appeal for Reconsideration

pertaining to the REJECTION NOTICE with the Transaction ID:57985968 filed on October 8th, 2015

DENYING the Praecipe to reinstate claiming the following " Praecipe to reinstate requires a filing of

$8.75. PA State Rules require a party to inform the court of improvement in financial

circumstances. Your most recent IFP was denied. The IFP granted in this case is from 2008".

If the Court (NOT OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY!) would consider the legal circumstances

surrounding my Whistleblowing activities and the Federal False Claims Act filing of the Petitioner

as it relates to the past 28 years and the myriad of violations of the Lancaster County District

Attorney, the Petitioner will argue that it is wholly unfair and unconstitutional not to grant the

Petitioner In Forma Pauperis Status. The Petitioner has filed ample evidence of a pattern and

relentless cycle of earning and accumulating capital and assets, as well building substantial worth

through his business interests, only to have it all extorted through an elaborate civil and criminal

scheme to defruad, Therefore any attempt to subject the Petitioner to more court related

fees is only a continuation of that same said fraud.

/2

The above captioned case contains all the said evidence needed to support my

claims. If need be, there are several cases in the United States District Court for theEastern District of Pennsylvania, such as 05-2288 and O6-465O that will suffice. Inaddition I am claiming that this rejection was also in retaliation for my recent appeal tothe U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to Lisa Lambelt v. SuperintendentFramingham MCI, et al.

I am only several weeks away from a decision by a Panel of Third Circuit Judges

that may set Lisa Michelle Lambeft FREE for the rest of her natural life! In addition,before the same said panel is an argument to grant me SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in allfederal and state court cases of which I am the PLAINTIFF seeking redress.

Consideration should be given to Pederson v. South Williamsport Area School District,

where the courts interpreted due process, as "Essentially fundamental fairness is exactly what due

process means". Furthermore, the United States District Courts in Perry v. Coyler (L978, 524 F

2d. 644) have concluded the following: "Even the probability of unfairness can result in a

defendant being deprived of his due process rights...". The focus of these claims are recorded in

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 05-2288 and 06-4650. Inaddition the Petioner is the MOVANT in the Lisa Michelle Lambrerft Case and recently filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment, 04-2559, which was recently appealed to the Third Circuit Court

of Appeals. The preceding cases have been preserved by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in

case no. 07-4474, see attached.

The prosecutorial misconduct the the Petitioner has been subject to has violated his

constitutional rights, but more importantly the abuse or process has prevented the Petitioner from

completing a wealth of claims in both state and federal Courts. 51983 Civil Rights Acts and 18

U.S.C.A. Acts state the following: "The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting

constitutional rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide

for federal prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are

ineffective for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of

individual rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from

federal interference", 18 U.S.C.A. gg 24L, 242; U.S.C.A. - Const. Art. 2, 53; Amend. t3, L4, 5,

15, $ 2: 42 U.S.C.A. SS 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C.A.

A case can be made for a RICO violation as defined in the case of United States v. Holck,

389 F. Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by the

following: "Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges in an

,3

indictment and it's proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy which

attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups committing

acts in fuftherance of an overall plan". This illustrates the legal analysis of the 1987 conspiracy to

cover-up my International Signal & Control, Plc., whistle blowing activities.

The attached 29 False Arrests, which under Pennsylvania Law, constitute a conspiracy that

may be proved by circumstantial evidence that is by acts and circumstances sufficient to warrant

an inference that the unlawful combination has been in front of facts formed for the purpose

charged. See Walcker v. North Wales Boro, 395 F. Supp. 2d.2L9. In the same case the following

was supported: "Arrestee's allegations that the township (Conestoga) and it's police officers were

acting in conceft and conspiracy and with the purpose of violating arrestee's constitutional rights

by subjecting him to unreasonable force, arrest, search, and malicious prosecution and the two

(2) or more officers acted together in throwing arrestee to the ground (April 5th, 2006 and August

4th, 2006) and forcing him to take two (2) blood tests and holding him in custody", The preceding

pleaded civil conspiracy claims under Pennsylvania Law.

. In order to state a claim for civil conspiracy and a cause of action under Pennsylvania Law, a

plaintiff must allege that two (2) or more persons agree or combine with lawful intent to do an

unlawful act or to do an otherwise lawful act by unlawful means, with proof of malice with

intent to injure the person, his/her property and or business, In the case of United States v.

Holck, 389 F, Supp. 2d. 338, criminal responsibility defines single or multiple conspiracies by

the following: "Governments, without committing variance between single conspiracy charges

in an indictment and itb proof at trial may establish existence at continuing core conspiracy

which attracts different members at different times and which involves different subgroups

committing acts in fuftherance of an overall plan". 51983 Civil Rights Acts and 18 U.S.C.A.

Acts state the following: "The underlying purpose of the scheme of protecting constitutional

rights are to permit victims of constitutional violations to obtain redress, to provide for federal

prosecution of serious constitutional violations when state criminal proceedings are ineffective

for purpose of deterring violations and to strike a balance between protection of individual

rights from state infringement and protection from state and local government from federal

interference", 18 U.S.C.A. 95 241,242; U.S.C.A. - Const. Art.2,53; Amend. 13, 14,5, 15, 5

2:42U.5.C.A. 55 1981-1982, 1985, 1988, Fed. Rules Civil Proc. Rule 28, U.S.C,A.

Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and

B state crimes-within a 1O-year period and, in the opinion of the US Attorney bringing the case,

has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering.

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in

t?

prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business

gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that

allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages. When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone

under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the

transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a

performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before

indictment. There is also a provision for private pafties to sue. A "person damaged in his business

or property" can sue one or more "racketeers." There must also be an "enterprise." The

defendant(s) are not the enterprise, in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not

one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s)

and the enterprise. This lawsuit, like all Federal civil lawsuits, can take place in either Federal or

Sta te co u rt. http : //www. dealer-magazine. com/index. asp?article:4 8 I

Where RICO laws might be appliedlAlthough some of the RICO predicate acts are extoftion and blackmail, one of the most

Successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for

their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or

retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The RICO laws can be

alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or

corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or

against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

1 ReferencesRICO Suave (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp) Snopes.com: (21 December 2004).Retrieved on 2006-03-26. 1.External linksRICO Act from Cornell University'sU. S. Code database(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc suo 01 18_10_I_20_96.html) Detailof TanyaAndersen's claim against Atlantic Records (htto://recordingindustrvvsoeoole.bloospot.com/2005/10/oregon-riaa -victi m-fio hts-back- sues. html) Retrieved fromhtto://en.wikioedia.orglwiki/Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Categories: Articles withweasel words I United States federal legislation I Organized crime terminology

ts

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt

to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as

a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech. RICO could

be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to

concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been

brought before the courts. These laws also apply to victims of clergy abuse where statute of

limitations has run out.

Dated October 16th, 2015

Stanley J. CaterboneAdvanced Media Group, President and OwnerPro Se Litigant, U.S. District Court & Pennsylvania Common Pleas CouftScaterbone@Live.com1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 176037L7-669-2163

tb

a ii.:qi'Il-:T

t,r' -

t7

5'!*t ru (- { o P Pol*ta/u'/'tun/LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION.LAWStanley J, Caterbone

PLAINTIFF

vs.

DEFENDANT

ORDER RE: MOTION TO PROCEED lN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND NOW, this _ day of

Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted as to the filing fees and costs.

BY THE COURT.

ItADlt-llDQ- >o)scase No' lffi

20--, the Petitione/s Motion to

J,

t6

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Stanley J. Caterbone

CRIMINAL DIVISION

tMxlno|Dotormv

1 1 08-201 5

Gase No. 16S@06xx

PLAINTIFF

vs.

Lancaster City Police. et al., ,

DEFENDANT

PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS & AFFIDAVIT

1. I am the petitioner in the above matter and because of my financial condition am unable ! pay

the fees and costs of prosecuting or defending this action or proceeding.

2. I am unable to obtain funds from anyone, including my family and associates, to pay the-osts of

litigation.

3. I represent that the information below relating to my ability to pay the fees and costs isrre

and correct:

a.) My Name is: Stanley J. Caterbone

My Address is: 1250 Fremont Street

Lancaster, PA 17603

b.) Employment:

lf you are presently employed, state your:

Employer:

t1

Employe/s Address:

Salary or wages per month:

Type of work:

lf you are presently unemployed, state:

Date of last employment:

Salary or wages per month:

Type ofwork:

c.) Please list any other income received within the past twelve months:(Write the gross amount (before taxes) per month that you received and the monthsyou received this income,)

Business or profession:

Other selfcmployment:

lnterest:

Dividends:

Pension and annuities:

Social security benefits:

Support payments:

Disability payments: 1.333.00/Past 1 2 months

Unemployment compensation and/or supplemental benefits:

Workers' Compensation :

?b

Public assistance:

Other:

d.) Other contributions to household support:(Write the gross amount (before taxes) per month that you received and the monthsyou received this income.)

(Wife)(Husband) Name:

lf your (wife) (husband) is employed, please state

Employer:

Salary or wages per month:

Type ofwork:

Contributions from children :

Contributions from parents:

Other contributions:

e.) Property owned:

cash: 1,500.00

Checking Account:

"' 400.00Savinos Account: '"'Certificates of deposit:

Real estate (including home): 1/4 of 80'000

MotorVehiclg yr*, HondacRV ,Yr r-- 2w-,$10.000.00

Cost: I@XXX Amount Owed: 13,750.00

Stocks and bonds: Unmarketable Securities, Pending Litigation See Atti

2l

Other:

f.) Debts and obligations:

Mortgage:

Rent:

Loans:

Other:

See Attached

(Write all of your regular monthly bills, phone, utilities, cable, insurance, etc.)

g.) Persons dependent upon you for support:

(Wife/Husband) Name:

Children, if any:

Other persons:

Name:

Relationship:

4. I understand that I have a continuing obligation to inform the court of improvement in my financial

circumstances which would permit me to pay the costs incurred herein.

Age:

ZL

5. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false

statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 . a.C.S. $ 4904, .elating

to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date:

/o/ra/aatS

z3

Monthly obligations for Stanley J. CaterboneIn Forma Pauperis Applicationre: Case No. 15-O6985 in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas

Utility Monthly Average

PP&L

UGI

ComcastTaxes

Insurance

Water/SewerCell PhoneMajic Jack

57L.94

547.28s162.ooS2so.oo

s43.7s528.s8s48.oos2.s0

Trash 517.50

sub-Total 56?155

Website Hosting SL5.00Office Supplies 550.00Copy Services

and Printing 535.00Technology and

Security 550.00Capitallmprovement 550.00Auto Loan 5220.00Medicare 5120.00MedicareSupplement 530.00

ffiTOTAT MOTHTY EXPENSES s1,241.55

zLl

Case 05-23059-ref Do

Strn I. Gatcrbone end Advancad Hdle GnoupGare 1lo. O5-2!iO59Baranesh.d GryArPq k<gtrnutty 1, 2O1O sr I t , ,, I a,-

\ rS^rtgtcN n

lou .' -,Y'- -!.ntll"ll-kgAPe--'-Grh 10,@

wactrovfa Bankchedring -ffi 2- d t-1, , S , {*1 / l>soc*{ socurityt}ebitcatd lf*if,lh & tl'fnrodory

Itd o.oo

Accounts Recetvabtes #q$d* c t e cu t' .,- |rotrf cumntar$tr |o|ipoc J". 01- 3l' ' .*nF

f -r- | L,*fp&"'Propdty&O0nrA.lct3 | lr_al\ t\--Residence 0.00 2l tt I 'd-HmraFumbhings Xffi >l' I

lgel DodgcPickUpDskota ---iEAAqCAdrnncsd fr/lediaGroup Slock fSUUdSUXAdnncod M€db Grqrp Eqdpmnt ,-,- -J,-qQq.qO--Litigntbnvatue Xt06tUr05ilX

l{d Proprrly ad OthorAnotr ilO$nIX

ro0dAr.or, *FlilHlsl PENDING LITIGATION NO VALUE

AT THIS TIME, NON MARKETABLEAccounts pry$leCitt Bank Credlt Card 912,111.93Bank of America $10,187.52PayPal Buyer Credit $1,809.80Disover $3,743.10Bank of America $623.59ChasdBank One +238.35AAIA fin6nqialServices $18'827.63A/A/A Financial Services S1'585.97Wells Fargo Financial Services f3,466.00Wells Fargo Financial Services S0.00Fuhon Mortgage Services $0.00Honda Financial Services $12,369.70Beneficial $7,000.00Comcast $1,813.11Sprint $805.76Capltol Blue Cross $32.00Donegal t*futuallnsurance $74.00Verizon $26,00FedEx 941.38pp&L $1,089.00willow Run Veterinary Cllnic $74.00

,rdfffie.#affirffi '.#la5lH**aisfr anDpr*rrhinrr,zoro

twtrd-Fr.&

ffi ffp:r*$ss*li*;mlcln*,r&t*d riln*rr r** rxdhr.*t*nwdtm*"7,$64axnd

Reorganizaffon Plan Page 30 of 31

2s'

Case 05-23059-ref D

Yamell Security SysmmsYolanda CatertoneCingular WirelessSovereing BankPorverf{et Global Commu nicationsWindstreamtancaster County ProbationBMG Music ServiceMicmsoftPacer Service Cenbr-U.SWest RrblicationsSalute Visa

I|EOIAAL BILUTLancaster Regional Medical CtrConestoga Oral & Maxillolacial AssorAnestesia Associates of lancaster, ISE Lancaster Health CllnlcAbbeWille Family Practice of LGHLancaster General Hospitalt-a ncaster Radiological AssociatesHealthPort

Charges are inflated; wrong; orliability of another person or entity.r1531211.16

Total Uabilities

Lor8Term Debt

IIetWordr

Non-Contested

rll{1,557.97

$0.00

{:r.rsl:d4 "cgitf.

3 2 o f deds9]{aftLged Fetgd&y ft.- -. -afr 6b16* h"nBs seril{htfl r 1, 20 10Document Page 31 of 31'

Stan J. Gatertone and Advanced Hedia GrcupCaee llo. O5-23O59

Balance Sheethnulry 1.2O1O

$1,076.32$25,000.00

$s09.98$4(X.8s

$2.82$9.ss

$1,800.00$120,33$s9.9s$41.92$92.22

$906,49

$459.98$1,259.00$1,034.00

$12.ss$149.00

$31,264.90$s68.00$61.17

lancaster Emergency Associates $795.00TOTALEAI.A]IGE re

Reorganization Plan Page 31 of 31

>b

,77

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/0 . L4:01:54 Desc Main

Case: a7-215't oocurfi&ftlUtFfitro+ffi1 SJ&' 1 Date Filed: o4tBl2o11

PRECEDENTIAL

UMTED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR TIIE THIRD CIRCI.IIT

No.07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOURT

FOR T:IE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIIA(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)

District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submined Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)March 17.20ll

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 4, 20ll)

Stanley J. Caterbone, Pro se

Advanced Media Group1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603

William Kanter, Esq.Jeffiica J. Lee, Esq.Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Room 7537Deparfrnent of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, DC 20530-000 I

EE

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/( . L4:0!:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: 0410412011case: o7-21s1 oocurR&tl$ts1lo+d#& 2 otli&", z

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.Court Appointed Amicus Curiae on Behalf of the CourtDuane Monis LLP1940 Route 70 EastCherry Hill, NJ 08003

OPIMON OF TFTE COURT

BARRY, Circuit Judee

This case involves an untimely notice of appeal to theDistrict Court after the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal, forcause, of a Chapter 11 petition. The question before us iswhether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 158(c)(2) and the FederalRules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an untimely filing such as theone at issue here deprives subsequent reviewing cotrtsJtere,both the District Court and this Court--of jurisdiction overthe appeal. We conclude that it does. Accordingly, we willdismiss the instant appeal and remand to the District Courtwith instnrctions to dismiss the appeal to it from theBankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. Background

Appellant Stanley J. Caterbone filed a Chapter I Ibankruptcy petition in May 2005. The United States Trusteesubsequently moved to dismiss the petition for cause, and theBankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 3,2006,citing various substantive and procedural deficiencies. ,See 11

u.s.c. $ 1112(b).

The order of dismissal was mailed to Caterbone byfirst class mail on October 5, 2006. On October 16, he sent a

notice of appeal by first class mail and elecfonic mail.However, the notice of appeal was filed with the DistrictConrt on October 19, rendering it untimely because itoccurred outside the ten-day window, then in place, for filing

??

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Frled 04l04lLL Entered 0B/0

case: or-21s1 oocu"PeB?'SB9?10+f,4899 3 $*b1' g

a notice of appeal. ^See

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (2006).t Itis undisputed that Caterbone did not file a "request to extendthe time for filing a notice of appeal ... by written motioa .. .

before the time for filing a notice of appeal ha[d] expired,"nor did the Bankruptcy Court grant such an extensionfollowing "a motion filed not later than 20 days after theexpiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal ... upon ashowing of excusable neglect." Id.8002(cX2).

Despite its untimely filing, Caterbone's appeal wasdocketed in the District Court on November 14, and theTrustee did not axgue that it was untimely. On March 15,

2007, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal, citingCaterbone's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006,which requires that a petitioner designate "items to beincluded in the record on appeal and a statement of the issuesto be presented." Caterbone appealed to this Cowt. Shortlythereafter, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal, citing, forthe first time, Caterbone's initial untimely notice of appeal,and arguing that, as a result of the untimely filing, the DishictCourt lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

Following various intervening events, including theappointment of amicus curiae, the case is now before us. TheTrustee argues that, consistent with Bowles v. Russell, 551

t In amending Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), effectiveDecember l, 2A09, to expand the time for filing a notice ofappeal to fourteen days, the Supreme Court's accompanyingOrder provided that the amendment *shall govern in allproceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter cornmenced and,insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending."Supreme Court of the United States, Order Amending FederalRules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Mar. 26,2009). The Trusteeargues that the'Just and practicable" rationale is inapplicablehere. Moreover, the Trustee notes that Caterbone's notice ofappeal was dated, but not filed, on October 16, and argues,persuasively in our view, that even if the expanded periodwere to apply, the notice of appeal was still untimely becauseit was filed the sixteenth day after entry of the BankruptcyCourt's order.

3

t4:0L:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: UlMl2011

3o

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/0

case: or-21s1 oocun?eonlJrdtBllo+f,#9 a $*E"' +

U.S. 205 (2007), Section 158(cX2) established a mandatory,jurisdictional deadline that statutorily encompasses Rule8002(a)'s specified timeline for appealing the judgment of abankruptcy court, such that the timeline is not akin to a

freestanding, waivable "claim-processing rule" within themeaning of Kontrick v. Ryan,540 U.S. 443 (2004). Amicusargues similarly. Caterbone, on the other hand, elides theBov,les analysis and argues,inter alia,thathis untimely filingshould be addressed, and excused, under the standard of"excusable neglect" set forth in Pioneer Inv. Sertts. Co. v.

BrunswickAssocs. Ltd. P'ship,507 U.S. 380 (1993).

For the reasons explained below, we hold that theprescribed timeline within which an appeal from a bankruptcycourt must be filed is mandatory and jurisdictional, thusaffrrming, in light of Bowles, the nrle that we applied inShareholders v. Sound Radio, Inc., 109 F.3d 873, 879 (3dCir. 1997).

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Jurisdiction is the threshold issue in this case, and wemust address its relevance both to the decision rendered bythe Disfrict Court, and to our review of that decision. Thus,as an initial matter, we note that we have jurisdiction over thefinal decision that the Disfrict Court rendered on Caterbone'sappeal from the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. $ 158(dxl).Our authority includes reviewing whether the District Court'sown exercise ofjurisdiction, per $ 158(a), was proper. Thatis because "subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a

court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited orwaived[, such that courts] ... have an independent obligationto determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, evenin the absence of a challenge from any pafty." Arbaugh v. Y& H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (internal quotationmarks and citation omitted).

Ordinarily, we apply plenary review to final orders ofa district court sitting as an appellate court reviewing thedecision of a bankruptcy court. In re Carnegie Ctr. Assocs.,129 F.3d 290,294 (3d Cir. 1997). However, following from

t4:0I:54 Desc Main

Date Fifed: UlMnUl

3I

Case 05-23059-ref D

Case: A7-2151

33 Flled 04l04lLl Entered 08/0

oocunBfft$03?toa#699 s $#: s

our obligation to determine the threshold issue of subjectmatter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 514, and where,as here, a party "contest[s] our jurisdiction and that of theDistict Court, ... [w]e exercise de novo review over [the]question[] of subject matterjurisdiction." Great W. Mining &Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP,615 F.3d 159, 163 (3dCir. 2010). This is the case even where, again as here, a

district court "exercis[es its] jurisdiction" and dismisses a

cause of action for some other reason. Id. If our independentreview yields the conclusion that the District Court lackedsubject matter jurisdiction over an appeal from theBankruptcy Court, the appropriate disposition is dismissal ofthe appeal. In re Caribbean Tubular Corp.,8l3 F.2d 533,

535 (lst Cir. 1987) (holding that where it is found that a

district court lacked appellate jurisdiction over a bankruptcycourt order, the court of appeals must dismiss the appeal to i!and remand to the distict court with instnrctions to vacate itsorder and to dismiss the appeal from the bankruptcy court).

III. Discussion

An appeal from a decision of a bankruptcy court issubject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. $ 158(cX2), whichprovides that appeals "shall be taken in the same manner as

appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courtsof appeals from the disftict courts and in the time provided byRule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules." When Caterbone filedhis appeal, that rule provided, in relevant part, that "notice ofappeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the dateof the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from."Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (2006).

Although Kontrick affirmed as "'a)domatic"' theproposition that requirements contained in a bankruptcy rulealone are not jurisdictional (and, hence, are waivable), 540U.S. at 453 (citation omitted), Section 158 provides thestatutory basis for the courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcyappeals. See 28 U.S.C. $ 158(a) & (d) (specifrngcircumstances of "district courts['] ... jurisdiction to hearappeals" and the "courts of appeals['] ... jurisdiction").Because Section 158 also specihes the time within which an

t4:0L:54 Desc Main

Date Fifed: O4l0/.l2011

3L

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLI Entered 08/0

case: or-21s1 oocunB$fr$03?toafs699 6 SS' o

appeal must be taken-i.e., *in the time provided by Rule8002"-that requirement is jurisdictional. As Bowlesclarified, both acknowledging and distinguishing Kontrick,"the taking of an appeal within [a statutorily] prescribed timeis mandatory and jurisdictional." 551 U.S. at 209 (internalquotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, "failureto file [a] notice of appeal in accordance with the statutetherefore deprive[s] ... [courts] of jurisdiction[, and bars apar{y from] ... rely[ing] on forfeiture or waiver to excuse [a]lack of compliance with the statute's time limitations." Id. at21 3 (citation omitted).

Here, even though it is a bankruptcy rule that specifiesthe time within which an appeal must be file4 the statutoryincorporation of that rule renders its requirement statutoryand, hence, jurisdictional and non-waivable. As the SupremeCourt recently observed, while *the distinction betweenjnrisdictional conditions [i.e., e la Bowles] and claim-processing rules [i.e., d la Kontrickl car^ be confusing inpractice[,] ... Bowles stands for the proposition that context,including th[e] Coutt's interpretation of similar provisions inmany years past, is relevant to whether a statute ranks a

requirement .N jr.risdictional." Reed Elsevier, Inc. y.

Muchnick, l30 S. Ct. 1237, 1243, 124748 (2010).

Beyond the fact that the statutory text of Section158(cX2) incorporates a time condition, historical contextalso supports our holding. Prior to Kontrick anrd Bowles, weregarded Rule 8002(a)'s time limit for filing a notice ofappeal as jrnisdictional. See Shareholders, 109 F.3d at 879;Whitemere Dev. Corp., fnc. v. Clerry Hill Twp.,786 F.2d185, 187 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Universal Minerals, Inc.,'155F.2d 309, 31 I (3d Cir. 1985). Kontick-and" later, Eberhartv. United States,546 U.S. 12 (2005farguably provided theopportunity to question whether this rule remained correct.That being said, a careful reading of Kontrick, Bowles, andReed Elsevier confirms that the rule we affrrmed inShareholders, Witemere, and Universal Minerals remainsthe rule today.

In holding that time constraints for objecting to a

L4:01:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: 041M12011

33

Case 05-23059-ref D

Case: 07-2151

33 Filed 04l04ltl Entered 08/0 1,4:0L:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: 041A412011oocunBfff;U05flo+sB6gg z Hrffi' z

discharge in bankruptcy are non-jurisdictional "claim-processing rules," Kontrick noted that Congress's statutorygrant ofjurisdiction to the courts to adjudicate discharges inbankruptcy contains no reference to a time condition. 540U.S. at 4s2-s3 (citing 28 U.S.c. $ 157(bxl), (b)(2)(I), and(bX2XD).'z To the contary, in holding that the statutorily-prescribed time provision for filing an appeal in a federalhabeas corpus proceeding ls jurisdictional, Bowles expresslystated: "Today we make clear that the timely filing of a noticeof appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." 551

U.S. at 214. Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that Arbaughcould be read to state that a clear statement rule applies toCongress's identification of a statutory limitation asjurisdictionalo see 546 U.S. at 515-16," Reed Elsevier morerecently clarified that, again dla Bowles,

the relevant question ... is not ... whether [aparticular statutory provision] itself has long

2 Likewise, rn Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 16, 21, the Courtconcluded that time provisions in the Federal Rules ofCriminal hocedure were non-jurisdictional, and thuswaivable. ln Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 515, the Court conoludedthat a numerical provision affecting Title VII claims, butwhich was separate from Title VII's jurisdictional provision,thereby was not jurisdictional.

3 As the Court stated inArbaugh:[W]e think it the sounder course to refrain fromconstricting $ l33l or Title VII's jurisdictionalprovision" and to leave the ball in Congress'court. If the Legislature clearly states that athreshold limitation on a statute's scope shallcount as jurisdictional, then courls and litigantswill be duly instructed and will not be left towrestle with the issue. But when Congress does

not rank a statutory limitation on coverage asjurisdictional, courts should treat the restrictionas nonjurisdictional in character.

546 U.S. at 515-16 (internal citations and referenceomitted).

7

3V

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/0

case: ar-21s1 oocun?&Ql0FJllo+fffi8 $ff", s

been labeled jwisdictional, but whether the typeof limitation that [it] imposes is one that isproperly ranked as jurisdictional absent an

express designation. The statutory limitation inBowles was of a type that we had long held did"speak in jurisdictional terms" even absent a

'Jurisdictional" label, and nothing about [thatprovision's] text or context, or the historicaltreatment of that type of limitation, justified adeparture from this view.

130 S. A.at1248.

It is evident, in light of Shareholders,lY'hitemere, andUniversal Minerals, that we "ha[ve] long held" that Section158(c)(2)'s incorporation of the filing timeline specified inRule 8002(a) "speak[s] in jurisdictional terms[,] even absent ajurisdictional label, and [that] nothing about [its] text orcontext, or [itsJ historical treafinent ... justifre[s] a departrnefrom this view." See Reed Elsevier, 130 S. Ct. at 1248.Because it was both prior to and shortly after Reed Elsevierthat we affirmed in non-precedential opinions that the timerequirement for filing a bankruptcy appeal is jurisdictional,we now take the occasion to so hold in a precedentialopinion.a Doing so comports with the fact that, unlike therules that Eberhart andKontrick held were non-jurisdictional,Rule 8002(a)'s time limit is rooted in a congressionally-enacted statute. ,See Fed. R Bankr. P. 8002, advisorycommittee note (noting that "th[e] rule is an adaptation of'Fed. R. App.P.a(a)); see also Bowles,55l U.S. at2l2,2l3("[A] statute-based filing period for civil cases isjurisdictional. . . . Because Congress decides whether federalcourts can hear cases at all, it can also determine when" andunder what conditions, federal courts can hear them. Putanother woy, the notion of subject-matter jurisdictionobviously extends to ... when Congress prohibits federalcourts from adjudicating an otherwise legitimate class of

o For purposes of reference only, we note In re Taylor,343 F. App'x 753,755 (3d Cir. 2009), and In re Jacobowitz,384 F. App'x 93,94 (3d Cir.2010).

8

.74:0t:54 Desc Main

Date Fifed:04104'12011

3<

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLI Entered 08/0

case: o7-21s1 oocum%%tu&3?Io+feB99 e

$#g%' g

cases after a certain period has elapsed from final judgmenl.(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Taking allof this into consideration, we conclude that the rule weenunciated in Shareholders rerrrains good law.5

Given the fact that subject matter jurisdiction overCaterbone's appeal to the Distict Court wff, and is,lacking-and that jurisdictional defect also bars us fromreviewing the merits of his appeal le us-\Ms need not addressthe Court's dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute.

Nor need we address Caterbone's argument that his"excusable neglecf' saves his untimely filing, given the cleartext of Rule 8002 and the guidance of Sharelnlders:

Rule 8002(c) ... requires that even in cases ofexcusable neglect, the issue must be raised andthe appeal filed within the ... window of Rule8002 (Rule 8002(a)'s [timeline] forthe appeal +8002(c)'s [timeline] for the extension). Therule does not allow a party to claim excusableneglect after the [time period] ha[s] expired.

109 F.3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). Finally, wedecline to address Caterbone's remaining arguments, because

they do not pertain to the threshold issue ofjurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the instantappeal and remand to the Distict Court with instructions todismiss Caterbone's appeal from the Bankruptcy Cor.rt forlack of subject matter jurisdiction.

t Our conclusion is consistent with the holdings of oursister circuits ttrat have affirmed that the filing timeline forbankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. See In re Latntre, 605F.3d 830, 837 (10ttt Cir. 2010); In re Wiersma,483 F.3d 933,938 (9ttt Cir.2007); In re B.A.R. Entm't Mgmt., Inc.,2010WL 4595554 (2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2010) (citing In re Siemon,421F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005)).

9

t4:0I:54 Desc Main

Date Filed: MlO4l2A11

3G

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04lLL Entered 08/0 L4:0I:54 Desc Main

case: 07-2151 oocufiSffUFJ{rO+Edflftto p[ot' 1 Date Fited: uto4t2o11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR TtM fi{IRD CIRCTIIT

No.07-2151

IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,Stanley J. Caterbone, Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR TTIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05012)Disrict Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 3a.1(a)March 17.2011

Before: BARRY, CHAGARES and ROTII, Circuit Judees

JUDGMENT

This cause came to be heard on the appeal from the United States Disfrict Court

for the Eastem District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on March 17,2011.

After consideration of all the contentions raised- it is

ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed and this

matter is remanded to the Distict Court with instnrctions to dismiss Caterbone's appeal

from the Bankruptcy Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No costs. All in

accordance with the Opinion of the Court.

37

Case 05-23059-ref D 33 Filed 04l04ltl Entered 08/0 L4:0L:54 Desc Main

case: 07-2',51 OocuRgfitlnoffit104869&+1 Fff:Z Date Fited: O4tMt2O11

ATTEST:

/V Marcia M, WaldrorlClerk

Dated: April 4,2011

3(

Case 05-23059-ref E 33 Filed 04l04ltt Entered 08/(

OFFICE OF TI{E CLERK

IJmrBo Surns Counr or ApPEALs2I4OO IJNITED STATES COI,JRTHOUSE

6Ot MARKETSTREET

PHILADELPHTA" PA I9IOI5.I790

Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

case: a7-21s1 oocufigfitlt6${toaBS$&12 FafE: r

MARCIAM.WALDRON

CLERK

April4,20ll

Mr. Stanley J. Caterbone1250 Fremont StreetLancaster, PA 17603

Jeftica J. Lee, Esq.United States Department of JusticeCivil Division950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20530

Catherine L. Sakach, Esq.Duane Morris1940 Route 70 EastSuite 200Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

RE: In re: Stanley Caterbone

Case Number:07-2151

District Case Number: 06-cv-05012

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, April 04, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant toFed. R. App. P.36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. Theprocedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forttr in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.

L4:07:54 Desc Main

Date Fifed:0410r',12011

TELEPHONE

2t5-597-2995

3?

Case 05-23059-ref t 33 Filed O4lO4lLL Entered 08/r .74:0L:54 Desc Main

case: o7-21s1 OocuRBfitlt63t104Btg8y'3 gaffi, z Date Fited: a4n4DO11

Time for Filing:14 days after entry ofjudgment.45 days after entry ofjudgment in a civil case if the United States is a pany.

Page Limits:l5 pages

Attachments:A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are permitted withoutfirst 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.If separate petitions forpanelrehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and willbe subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do notprovide for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the event that the p€titionseeking only panel rehearing is denied.

A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.RApp.P. 39 must file an itemized and verifiedbill of costs within 14 days from the entry ofjudgm€nt. The bill of costs must be submitted onthe proper form which is available on the court's website.

A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.R.App.P. 41.

Review of this Court's final decision may be pursued in the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 tuly yours,

/z1r',.... h. t/ot/rr*,Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

By: Charlene/jkCase Manager267-2994923

1o

J:i:n':i-\;; ;:1 4-'*"fr:fi{iir,+. . ' '.,ri-Ji. ,'"