9 NICS App. 28, SKOKOMISH TRIBE v. GAMBER (August 2009)
IN THE SKOKOMISH TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
SKOKOMISH INDIAN RESERVATION
SKOKOMISH, WASHINGTON
Skokomish Indian Tribe, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Harold Gamber, Defendant and Appellant.
No. CrF 05/08-212 (August 31, 2009)
SYLLABUS*
Trial court issued order finding tribal member guilty of a fishing infraction. Court of Appeals holds that appellant’s failure to comply with Court of Appeals’ order directing appellant to cure defects in notice of appeal requires dismissal of appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Before: Eric Nielsen, Chief Judge; Lisa L. Atkinson, Judge; Leona T. Colegrove, Judge.
OPINION
Nielsen, C.J.:
This matter comes before the Skokomish Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to the scheduling orders for this matter entered by this Court on July 6, 2009 and August 14, 2009. The first Scheduling Order noted that Appellant’s notice of appeal did not include a statement of “the reasons why the party appealing thinks the court made a mistake” as required by Skokomish Tribal Code section 3.01.103(b). The Scheduling Order ordered Appellant to file a written statement of the reasons why he thought the trial court made a mistake and any legal arguments he wished to make in support of his appeal with the Tribal Court Clerk no later than Friday, July 24, 2009. Because this Court was not convinced that the tribal court clerk had properly served Appellant with the first Scheduling Order, this Court entered a Second Scheduling Order on August 14, 2009, that again ordered Appellant to file a statement of the reasons for his appeal, and extended the date for Appellant to file his statement to August 24, 2009. Appellant has failed to comply with these orders requiring him to file a statement of the reasons for his appeal.
Because Appellant has failed to perfect his notice of appeal as directed by this Court, the appeal is dismissed.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court’s Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.