United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto

556 F.2d 1217, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1977

Docket77-1034

StatusPublished

Cited by31 cases

This text of 556 F.2d 1217 (United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto, 556 F.2d 1217, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12158 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek review of the denial of their motion to reduce sentence under Fed. R.Crim.P. 35. As recorded in the docket entry, the court denied the motion December 1, 1976. Appellants filed a notice of appeal December 15, 1976. Under Fed.R. App.P. 4(b), the appeal was untimely.

A rule 35 motion is a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution. See Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 418 n.7, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959). Accordingly, the 10 day limitation of Fed.R. App.P. 4(b) governs. Appellants’ counsel may be charged with knowledge of the difference between a rule 35 motion and a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

*1218 We remand the ease to allow the district court to determine whether excusable neglect entitles appellants to an extension of the time for appeal.

REMANDED.

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