Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/163

 502us1$$1H 02-08-99 07:20:49 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 1 (1991)

5

Per Curiam

same effect in criminal cases. Id., at 78–79. More than 12 years later, we decided United States v. Dieter, supra (per curiam). There, too, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed as untimely the Government’s appeal from a District Court’s order dismissing an indictment. Although the Government’s notice of appeal had been filed within 30 days of a District Court order denying its “Motion to Set Aside Order of Dismissal,” it was not filed within 30 days after the order of dismissal itself. The Court of Appeals held that our decision in Healy, supra, governed only in cases of claimed errors of law, whereas the basis of the Government’s motion for reconsideration in Dieter was mistake or inadvertence. We vacated and remanded the decision of the Court of Appeals, saying that it “misconceived the basis of our decision in Healy. We noted there that the consistent practice in civil and criminal cases alike has been to treat timely petitions for rehearing as rendering the original judgment nonfinal for purposes of appeal for as long as the petition is pending.” 429 U. S., at 8. We pointed out the presumed benefits of this rule—district courts are given the opportunity to correct their own alleged errors, and allowing them to do so prevents unnecessary burdens being placed on the courts of appeals. We concluded that “the Court of Appeals’ law/ fact distinction—assuming such a distinction can be clearly drawn for these purposes—finds no support in Healy.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals in the present case nonetheless determined that the 30-day period was not affected by the Government’s motion to reconsider. It instead created a special rule for motions that seek reconsideration of previously disavowed theories because it concluded that suspending the time to appeal upon such motions does not further the goals described in Dieter. Because such motions do not serve to