United States v. Patterson

22 F. App'x 163
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 19, 2001·No. 01-6707·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard M. Patterson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was filed beyond the time period allowed under the Rule. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; see also United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 648 (4th Cir.1995) (holding that time limits set forth in Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 are jurisdictional). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

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

United States v. Patterson, 22 F. App'x 163 (4th Cir. 2001).

22 F. App'x 163 (United States v. Patterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patterson v. United States
535 U.S. 932 (Supreme Court, 2002)