Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cr-00277-PCD

Document 35

Filed 12/29/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Susan GODDING. : : : : :

Case No: 3:03cr277 (PCD)

RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD The Government moves [Doc. No. 33] pursuant to FRAP 10(e)(2) to supplement the record on appeal regarding Defendant's sentencing. Defendant seeks to include in the record several statements from various police officers and a death certificate for Defendant's mother. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2) allows the district court to supplement the record on appeal "[i]f anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident." Supplementation of the record is appropriate when it will help the appellate court understand factors that influenced the district court's opinion. See e.g. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 818 F.2d 252, 253 (2d Cir. 1987). It is not an appropriate tool to augment the appellate record on matters not considered by the district court. See e.g. Kirshner v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1988); Massachusetts v. United States Veterans Admin., 541 F.2d 119, 123 n. 5 (1st Cir. 1976); Borden, Inc. v. FTC, 495 F.2d 785, 788 (7th Cir. 1974); Xiao v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc., 01 Civ. 8556 (HB), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23673, *3-5 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 6, 2002). The information sought was not part of the record before the district court as the date of the materials named post-dates Defendant's sentencing in May 2004. The materials requested were not therefore omitted from or misstated in the current record and as the issue on appeal 1

Case 3:03-cr-00277-PCD

Document 35

Filed 12/29/2004

Page 2 of 2

deals with the propriety of the sentence imposed by the district court, FRAP 10(e)(2) does not provide a basis for this Court to permit supplementing the appellate record with the information requested. Accordingly, the Government's Motion [Doc. No. 33] is denied. SO ORDERED. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, December 27 , 2004. /s/ Peter C. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge United States District Court

2