United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1984
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JERALE I. MANNING-ROSS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Justo Arenas, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
Before
Torruella, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Selya, Circuit Judge.
Juan F. Matos-de Juan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with
whom Joseph C. Laws, Jr., Federal Public Defender, and Joannie
Plaza-Martínez, Assistant Federal Public Defender, were on brief,
for appellant.
CPT Corey Jack Marks, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, with
whom H.S. García, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
March 30, 2004
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Magistrate Judge Arenas found
defendant-appellant, Jerale I. Manning-Ross ("Manning"), guilty of
driving under the influence of alcohol on a federal military base
and fined him $500. Manning appealed his conviction and fine, in
the first instance, to this court. We dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
The parties now believe, as does this panel, that this
court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. "In all cases of
conviction by a United States magistrate an appeal of right shall
lie from the judgment of the magistrate to a judge of the district
court of the district in which the offense was committed." 18
U.S.C. § 3402. It is well established that "[t]his language
indicates that a defendant challenging a conviction or a sentence
rendered by a Magistrate Judge must do so in the first instance in
the district court." United States v. Jones, 117 F.3d 644, 645 (2d
Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57
(4th Cir. 1994); United States v. Smith, 992 F.2d 98, 99 (7th Cir.
1993); United States v. Soolook, 987 F.2d 574, 575 (9th Cir. 1993);
Midway Mfg. Co. v. Kruckenberg, 720 F.2d 653, 654 (11th Cir.
1983)). To appeal the Magistrate Judge's decision, Manning should
have appealed to the district court. This court has jurisdiction
to entertain an appeal only after the district court renders a
final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
-2-
Courts confronting similar situations have noted that
although the notice of appeal "identified this court rather than
the district court as the reviewing body, that error does not
deprive the lower court of jurisdiction" to review the conviction
and the fine if notice of the appeal was timely filed and the
appellee will not suffer undue prejudice. Smith, 992 F.2d at 100;
see also Jones, 117 F.3d at 645-46; Soolook, 987 F.2d at 575.
Thus, we dismiss the appeal. Had we jurisdiction over
this case, we would have dismissed it in its entirety. We became
aware of the fact that this court lacked jurisdiction after reading
the briefs, researching the case law, and hearing oral arguments.
By that point, it was clear that Manning's contention that there
was insufficient evidence to support a conviction lacked merit. It
was also clear that the fine imposed by the Magistrate Judge was
appropriate, as the Puerto Rico Penal Code contains a catchall
penalty provision that prescribes a penalty when one is not
established by the other sections of the Code. See 33 P.R. Laws
Ann. § 3045.
Appeal dismissed.
-3-