Whether an appellate court acts without authority when it enforces the non-jurisdictional deadline for a direct criminal appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) with the harsh consequences this Court has only allowed jurisdictional rules, particularly in the context of the interests at stake in a challenge to an unlawful criminal sentence, authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has recognized at least two distinct categories of time limits in our system of justice: those with jurisdictional consequences, and the more ordinary nonjurisdictional claim-processing deadlines, adopted for “the orderly transaction” of a court’s business. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 448, 454 (2004). Each has different consequences if a party misses it and each limits the authority of a federal appellate court in distinct ways. Jurisdictional deadlines fundamentally alter “the normal operation of our adversarial system” because they require courts to dismiss any case filed after the deadline, regardless of the waste of resources and time or of any other interests weighing in favor of hearing the merits of a case. Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Because of these harsh consequences, in recent years this Court has tried to limit the situations in which federal courts may consider a rule to have jurisdictional consequences. Id. at 435. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an appellate court acts without authority when it enforces the non-jurisdictional deadline for a direct criminal appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) with the harsh consequences this Court has only allowed jurisdictional rules, particularly in the context of the interests at stake in a challenge to an unlawful criminal sentence, authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742. 2. Whether non-jurisdictional rules, such as Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), are subject to equitable exceptions and whether equitable considerations should excuse the missed deadline of an indigent defendant, unrepresented by counsel, in this case. i