United States v. James Ronald Garner, Also Known as Duck

958 F.2d 372, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354, 1992 WL 56757
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 23, 1992
Docket92-5193
StatusUnpublished

This text of 958 F.2d 372 (United States v. James Ronald Garner, Also Known as Duck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. James Ronald Garner, Also Known as Duck, 958 F.2d 372, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354, 1992 WL 56757 (6th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

958 F.2d 372

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Ronald GARNER, also known as Duck, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-5193.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 23, 1992.

Before NATHANIEL R. JONES and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and JOINER, Senior District Judge.*

ORDER

Defendant was sentenced on April 19, 1990, to 136 months imprisonment for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846. His appeal of that conviction was affirmed by this court on August 6, 1991. See United States v. James R. Garner, No. 90-5613 (6th Cir. August 6, 1991). On February 3, 1992, defendant filed a notice of appeal in the district court, designated as an appeal of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The government now moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A notice of appeal in a criminal action is required to be filed within ten days of the entry of the judgment. Rule 4(b), Fed.R.App.P. This requirement in mandatory and jurisdictional. United States v. Hatfield, 815 F.2d 1068, 1073 (6th Cir.1987). The statute providing for review of sentences, 18 U.S.C. § 3742, does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal filed on February 3, 1992, is untimely and cannot confer jurisdiction in this court.

It therefore is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to whatever rights defendant may have to seek review of his sentence in the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

*

The Honorable Charles W. Joiner, U.S. Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

United States v. Richard Lee Hatfield
815 F.2d 1068 (Sixth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
958 F.2d 372, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354, 1992 WL 56757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-ronald-garner-also-known-as-duck-ca6-1992.