Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Royce Int'l Broad. Co. v. FCC, No. 11-1270 (D.C. Cir.)

Download Options

Released: June 12, 2012
USCA Case #11-1270 Document #1378178 Filed: 06/12/2012 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT





No. 11-1270

September Term, 2011















FILED ON: JUNE 12, 2012
ROYCE INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY,
PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
RESPONDENT



On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Federal Communications Commission



Before: BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges, and GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge

J U D G M E N T




This appeal was considered on the record, briefs, and oral arguments of the parties. The
court has accorded the issues full consideration and determined that they do not warrant a
published opinion. See FED. R. APP. P. 36; D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated below, it is

ORDERED

and ADJUDGED that the petition of Royce International Broadcasting
Company for review of the June 27, 2011 order of the Federal Communications Commission be
denied. In that order, the Commission denied Royce’s petition to reconsider an earlier decision
not to grant Royce additional time to file an application for review. Royce argues that it missed
the thirty-day deadline to seek review of the decision of the Commission’s Media Bureau
because of a misunderstanding with its former counsel. But this Court “has held often enough
that the Commission does not abuse its discretion when it ‘declines to entertain a late-filed
petition in the absence of extenuating circumstances prohibiting a timely filing.’” BDPCS, Inc. v.
FCC
, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. FCC,
318 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). And both this Court and the Commission have consistently
held that error by counsel is not an extenuating circumstance justifying waiver of a filing
deadline. See NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 126 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Virgin Islands Tel.
Corp. v. FCC
, 989 F.2d 1231, 1237 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Hillebrand Broad., Inc., 1 FCC Rcd 419,
419 n.6 (1986).

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is
directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any

USCA Case #11-1270 Document #1378178 Filed: 06/12/2012 Page 2 of 2
timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C.
CIR. R. 41.

PER CURIAM



FOR THE COURT:


Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/













Jennifer M. Clark
Deputy Clerk


Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.