AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by Mukhtiar S. Khalsa, a self-represented litigant, against two orders filed by the district court on December 29, 2017. The appeal was made in the context of a mortgage loan asset-backed certificates dispute involving U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for C-BASS 2007-SP1 Trust, and several defendants, including Mukhtiar S. Khalsa (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his notice of appeal was timely filed; even if it was filed late, it was due to court error because the district court did not address his notice of specific negative averment and did not allow him to review the orders before they were entered. He also argued that a timely filing of a notice of appeal is not a mandatory precondition to the Court’s jurisdiction over an appeal, his right to an appeal should not be denied due to his own “ineffective assistance of counsel,” and he has an absolute right to one appeal (paras 3-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's notice of appeal was filed in a timely manner.
• Whether unusual circumstances beyond the control of the appellant justify overlooking procedural defects in the filing of the notice of appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to an untimely notice of appeal, finding no unusual circumstances that would warrant overlooking procedural defects (para 6).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (STEPHEN G. FRENCH, Judge, and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge, concurring): The Court determined that the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed, which is a mandatory precondition to appellate jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that while it may exercise discretion to consider an untimely appeal in the event of unusual circumstances beyond the control of a party, no such circumstances were present in this case. The Court also noted that failure to adhere to the time and place of filing requirements is not considered a "technical" violation that can be overlooked under the policy of facilitating the right of appeal. The appellant's arguments, including the claim of court error and the right to one appeal, were not persuasive enough to overcome the jurisdictional deficiency caused by the late filing of the notice of appeal (paras 2-6).