United States v. Melvin Rivers

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 10, 2024
Docket23-50043
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Melvin Rivers (United States v. Melvin Rivers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Melvin Rivers, (9th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-50043

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03954-BEN-1 v.

MELVIN WARREN RIVERS, AKA Juice MEMORANDUM* Lee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: CHRISTEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,*** Judge.

Melvin Rivers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for early

termination of supervised release that followed his 2014 conviction for conspiracy

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 1 to commit sex trafficking of a juvenile in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss the appeal as untimely.

A defendant must file a notice of appeal within fourteen days of the order

being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Rivers’s motion for early

termination of supervised release was denied on January 9, 2023. Rivers filed a

notice of appeal on February 28, 2023, which specified that he was appealing the

January 9 order denying the motion. Rivers’s notice of appeal was filed fifty days

after the order denying his motion, making it untimely. “Because the government

properly raised the untimeliness argument in the instant case . . . we are required to

dismiss [Rivers]’s appeal.” United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir.

2007).

DISMISSED.

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

Related

United States v. Philip Martin Sadler
480 F.3d 932 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Melvin Rivers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-melvin-rivers-ca9-2024.