Royce Int'l Broad. Co. v. FCC, No. 11-1270 (D.C. Cir.)
USCA Case #11-1270 Document #1378178 Filed: 06/12/2012 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals
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
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
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Pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court, this disposition will not be published.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.
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Jennifer M. Clark
Deputy Clerk
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 BroadcastingCompany 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.
