December 2, 2002, requested leave to file its brief nunc pro tunc, see Pa.RA.P. 105(b), on the basis that it believed that the deadline was later than November 15. As the Commonwealth has not shown good cause for purposes of Rule 105(b), its request is denied, and its submission will not be considered. 5 . See, e.g., In re Welsh, 327 Pa.Super. 112, 118, 475 A.2d 123, 127 (1984) (finding that the defendant was subject to official detention when he was placed in an unsecured, unrestricted facility pursuant to the Juvenile Act); Commonwealth v. Brown, 261 Pa.Super. 240, 245, 396 A.2d 377, 379 (1978) (indicating that the defendant was still in detention although he had left jail to participate in a work-release program); see also Commonwealth v. Colon, 719 A.2d 1099, 1101 (Pa.Super. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 436 Pa.Super. 626,
holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding the defendant was not under arrest when police asked him to go to the station and then offered him a ride because he did not have transportation holding that accused was not in custody when told he was not under arrest and was free to leave and did in fact freely leave the interview holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions holding in the context of a prosecution for second degree escape that although defendant was not handcuffed he had nonetheless been placed under arrest had had his liberty restrained in that he was not free to leave and at that point the first step in the process of transporting him to the police station had begun consequently the defendants arrest was complete and he was in custody