Perez v. Stephens

(1) Whether a federal court of appeals is authorized to review sua sponte and invalidate an order reopening the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), when the appellee never appealed the order; (2) whether attorney abandonment, which Maples v. Thomas held is an "extraordinary circumstance" equitably excusing a resulting failure to appeal a denial of state habeas relief, is likewise an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting reentry of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the time to appeal when the abandonment caused the failure to appeal a denial of federal habeas relief; and (3) whether notice of the entry of a judgment is imputed to a party for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) when the party's lawyer receives notice of the judgment, but, instead of notifying the party, abandons him.