at a post office box or drop-box, designated for court documents, and the clerk’s docketing the document is not attributable to the filing party. See, e.g., Stevens v. Heard, 674 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir.1982) (“[W]hen a party has no control over the delay between the clerk’s receipt of a notice of appeal and its filing, the fact that a notice of appeal, timely received, was filed out of time [does] not defeat the appeal.”) (emphasis added); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.1980) (“Because an appellant has no control over delays between receipt and filing, a notice of appeal is timely if received by the district court within the applicable period specified in Rule 4.”); Turner v. City of Newport, 887 F.Supp. 149, 150-51 (E.D.Ky.1995) (citing Central Paper, 199 F.2d at 904) (<HOLDING>); Hetman v. Fruit Growers Express Co., 200
holding statute that extended statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual conduct could not be applied retroactively to a prosecution commenced after the limitations statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense had expired holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations holding that placing a complaint in clerks offices postoffice box at 1130 pm of the day the statute of limitations expired counted as timely filing holding that the filing of a complaint in a class action suit suspends the statute of limitations but a denial of class certification reactivates the statute of limitations for potential plaintiffs