He who hesitates is lost, court tells Dorchester man who was a day late in appealing 18-year prison sentence

On Oct. 6, 2016, Samuel Dixon filed an appeal of his 18-year federal sentence for gun possession. Unfortunately for Dixon, that was exactly one day after the deadline he had for filing his appeal. And that, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled today, is reason enough to decline his request to have his sentence shortened.

Even if it were to consider his arguments, the court said, it might very well have have upheld his sentence, because Dixon had more than the three required convictions in his record to warrant the extra long prison term as an "armed career criminal" - including a federal conviction for armed bank robbery, two federal convictions for unarmed bank robbery, two Massachusetts convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, two Massachusetts convictions for unarmed robbery, and a Massachusetts conviction for possession of a controlled substance.

But the court said it didn't have to consider any of Dixon's arguments because he failed at the start to provide a good - or any - reason for being a day late in filing his appeal:

We have said that every time Congress draws a line, some people are bound to fall on the wrong side of it. ... If the deadline that Congress has chosen seems harsh when applied in a given case, such a risk of perceived harshness "is endemic to lines." ... So it is here: the petitioner filed his motion to vacate or correct his sentence one day after the deadline established by Congress had expired. Consequently, his motion was late - and the petitioner has not alleged any facts that would suggest a justification for excusing the untimely filing. Therefore, we summarily affirm the district court's order of dismissal.