United States v. Hart
This text of United States v. Hart (United States v. Hart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30486 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH L. HART,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 94-CR-30038-3 - - - - - - - - - -
July 13, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth L. Hart appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion filed pursuant to former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. Hart
contends that the district court erred in determining the amount
of restitution owed and in designating the victim.
At any stage of judicial proceedings, federal courts may
question, sua sponte, whether subject matter jurisdiction is
proper. In re Bass, 171 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1999). A
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 98-30486 -2-
district court’s holding that it has jurisdiction is a legal
determination, which we review de novo. Id.
Hart concedes that he did not file his motion within the
120-day period prescribed by former Rule 35. The time limit
imposed by former Rule 35(b) was jurisdictional, and the district
court was without authority to extend the period. See In re
United States, 900 F.2d 800, 803 (5th Cir. 1990).
Former Rule 35(a) allowed the sentencing court to “correct
an illegal sentence at any time.” United States v. Lopez, 26
F.3d 512, 517 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994). An illegal sentence is one
that the judgment of conviction does not authorize. United
States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 506 (1954).
Hart, at most, alleges error in his sentence. He does not
request correction of an illegal sentence. Accordingly, the
district court was without jurisdiction to consider Hart’s
motion. Hart’s appeal is DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Hart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hart-ca5-1999.