United States v. George v. Janovich

688 F.2d 1227, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 8, 1982·No. 81-1705·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. George v. Janovich, 688 F.2d 1227, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 17629 (9th Cir. 1982).

688 F.2d 1227 (United States v. George v. Janovich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Kang
17 F. App'x 527 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Cardinell v. State
644 A.2d 11 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1994)
Jackson v. United States
626 A.2d 878 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1993)
United States v. Steven D. Lefler
880 F.2d 233 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Edward P. Wolfram, Jr.
843 F.2d 1393 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co.
746 P.2d 295 (Washington Supreme Court, 1987)