United States v. George v. Janovich
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George v. JANOVICH, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 35 motion to reduce his sentence and from the denial of the succeeding motion to reconsider. The appeal is untimely and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendant filed his notice of appeal more than ten days after his Rule 35 motion was denied.
United States v. Guiterrez, 556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1977). His motion for reconsideration did not toll the ten day period because it was filed 21 days following denial. The notice of appeal did not comply with Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).
Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 , 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).
The defendant’s notice of appeal from the denial of his untimely motion to reconsider is unavailing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was filed more than 120 days after his sentence became final.
United States v. Hetrick, 644 F.2d 752, 756 (9th Cir. 1980).
We dismiss.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.