This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether a second notice of appeal is required to challenge attorneys’ fees after a district‑court summary judgment, and whether an amended notice of appeal can satisfy that requirement.
Background and question before the Court
According to Mr. KEDEM, petitioner Marcelo Manrique filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment and sentence entered on June 24, 2014.
Justices Ginsburg and Kagan asked whether the filing could be treated as an amended notice of appeal and whether the timeliness requirement is jurisdictional.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Marcelo Manrique)
According to Mr. KEDEM, a second notice of appeal is required to challenge the amount of attorneys’ fees after a summary‑judgment ruling.
According to Mr. KEDEM, the notice of appeal must be amended to identify the judgment being appealed, as required by Appellate Rule 3(c)(1)(b).
Respondent (United States)
According to Mr. RASHKIND, in criminal cases, one notice of appeal is sufficient; an amended notice can address additional issues such as attorneys’ fees.
According to Mr. KEDEM, a criminal defendant who is not indigent may file an amended notice of appeal without an additional filing fee.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner could treat the filing as an amended notice of appeal rather than a second notice.
According to Justice Kagan, the requirement of timeliness for a notice of appeal may be jurisdictional.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ef6404dc3be96af85f4a-r1-b503684a355fd1e8.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 25, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.