context: Unlike statutory deadlines that Congress intended to limit a court's jurisdiction, "[cjlaim-processing rules are court-promulgated rules, adopted by the Court for the orderly transaction of its business." Although they may not deprive, a court of jurisdiction to hear a case, such rules may still be "inflexible," and may require a court's strict compliance where the issue of timeliness has been properly raised.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 471 F.3d 193, 196
citation_a.parenthetical: assuming that rule governing timeliness of appeals is a claim-processing rule, appeal still must be dismissed because government properly objected to untimeliness
citation_a.sentence: Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005); United States v. Singletary, 471 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C.Cir.2006) (assuming that rule governing timeliness of appeals is a claim-processing rule, appeal still must be dismissed because government properly objected to untimeliness). Nonetheless, “failure to object to untimely submissions” may result in “forfeiture of the objection .... ” Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 18, 126 S.Ct. 403; see also Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140, 1147 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“A party indisputably forfeits a timeliness objection based on a claim-processing rule if he raises the issue after the court has issued a merits decision.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 480 F.3d 1140, 1147
citation_b.parenthetical: "A party indisputably forfeits a timeliness objection based on a claim-processing rule if he raises the issue after the court has issued a merits decision."
citation_b.sentence: Eberhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 12, 19, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005); United States v. Singletary, 471 F.3d 193, 196 (D.C.Cir.2006) (assuming that rule governing timeliness of appeals is a claim-processing rule, appeal still must be dismissed because government properly objected to untimeliness). Nonetheless, “failure to object to untimely submissions” may result in “forfeiture of the objection .... ” Eberhart, 546 U.S. at 18, 126 S.Ct. 403; see also Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140, 1147 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“A party indisputably forfeits a timeliness objection based on a claim-processing rule if he raises the issue after the court has issued a merits decision.”).