In the case of Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden (2006), Bowles, a prisoner serving a sentence for murder in Ohio, appealed his conviction on the grounds that he received ineffective counsel during his trial. The District Court granted him permission to file an appeal outside of the usual time frame due to exceptional circumstances. However, it made an error by giving him 17 days instead of 14 as stipulated by federal rules. When Bowles filed within this extended period but beyond the statutory limit, his appeal was dismissed because it was deemed untimely according to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). The Supreme Court upheld this decision arguing that courts do not have discretion over procedural deadlines set out in statutes or court rules and thus cannot extend them based on their own judgment or interpretation.

In the dissenting opinion for Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden, Justice Souter argued that the majority's decision was excessively rigid and failed to consider the practical realities of legal practice. He contended that Bowles had relied in good faith on a district court order setting his appeal deadline 17 days later than what federal rules allowed. The fact that this error originated from a judge rather than Bowles himself should have been taken into account by the Court when deciding whether or not to dismiss his case as untimely filed. According to Justice Souter, such an inflexible approach could lead to unjust results and undermine public confidence in courts' ability to administer justice fairly and effectively.