## Facts

- Anthony Leo Stutson was serving a 292-month federal prison sentence for cocaine possession.
- Stutson sought to appeal his conviction and sentence; Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) required a notice of appeal within 10 days.
- Counsel mailed the notice so that it arrived one working day late and was sent to the court of appeals instead of the district court.
- The district court found the appeal untimely and concluded the late filing was not “excusable neglect” under Rule 4(b), without addressing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and dismissed the appeal without oral argument and without an opinion.
- In the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General changed the government’s position, agreeing that Pioneer’s interpretation of “excusable neglect” applies to Rule 4 cases, consistent with other circuits that had addressed the question.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari, vacate the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment, and remand for reconsideration where the government repudiated its prior position, appellate authority favored applying Pioneer to Rule 4(b), and the courts below had not fully considered Pioneer.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court (per curiam) granted certiorari, vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment, and remanded (GVR).
- Applying the considerations described in Lawrence v. Chater, the Court concluded the case’s “particularities” warranted a GVR.
- The Court did not decide whether Stutson’s late filing constituted excusable neglect; it left that question for reconsideration on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A GVR order may be appropriate when potentially controlling developments or positions appear not to have been considered below and could affect the outcome.
- A government change in position and strong post-judgment appellate agreement on a legal standard can support vacatur and remand for reconsideration.
- Summary affirmance without opinion, combined with an apparent failure to consider relevant Supreme Court precedent, can weigh in favor of a remand to ensure full consideration.
- On GVR, the Supreme Court does not resolve the underlying merits issue; it returns the case for further proceedings under the relevant standard.

## Conclusion

The Court vacated and remanded so the Eleventh Circuit could reconsider the timeliness dismissal under Pioneer’s excusable-neglect approach in light of the government’s revised position, intervening appellate consensus, and the limited consideration given to the issue below.


Stutson v. United States, 516 U.S. 193 (1996)