Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/225

 546US1

14

Unit: $$U4

[08-22-08 13:34:13] PAGES PGT: OPIN

EBERHART v. UNITED STATES Per Curiam

considering the issues it raised, the Government opposed it on the merits. The District Court granted the motion for a new trial, cit­ ing all three grounds raised by petitioner. The judge con­ cluded that “ ‘none of these concerns standing alone or in pairing would cause me to grant a new trial,’ ” but that taken together, they “ ‘persuade me that the interests of justice require a new trial.’ ” Id., at 1048. The judge also pre­ dicted that “ ‘a new trial will quite likely lead to another conviction.’ ” Ibid. On appeal, the Government pointed to the untimeliness of petitioner’s supplemental memorandum, and argued that the District Court had abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on the arguments that the memorandum had raised. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a new trial, ﬁnding that the District Court had lacked jurisdiction to grant one. The Seventh Circuit observed: “The Supreme Court has held that Rule 45(b)’s prohibition on extensions of time is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” Id., at 1049 (quot­ ing United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229 (1960), and citing United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 474, n. 2 (1947)). Based on Robinson and Smith, the Seventh Circuit ex­ plained, “ ‘[w]e have previously emphasized that [Rule 33’s] 7-day period is jurisdictional, and that the court is without jurisdiction to consider even an amendment to a timely new trial motion if it is ﬁled outside the seven day period, absent a timely extension by the court or new evidence.’ ” 388 F. 3d, at 1049 (quoting United States v. Washington, 184 F. 3d 653, 659 (CA7 1999)). The Court of Appeals did, however, express some misgiv­ ing. After describing the holding of Kontrick, it com­ mented that “[t]he reasoning of Kontrick may suggest that Rule 33’s time limits are merely inﬂexible claim-processing rules that could be forfeited if not timely asserted.” 388 F. 3d, at 1049. It concluded, however, that even if Kontrick had undermined Robinson and Smith, “we are bound to fol­