United States v. Todd Matthews

268 F. App'x 499
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 12, 2008
Docket06-3422
StatusUnpublished

This text of 268 F. App'x 499 (United States v. Todd Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Todd Matthews, 268 F. App'x 499 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

*500 [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Todd Matthews appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. We conclude that jurisdiction is lacking. See Specialty Mills, Inc. v. Citizens State Bank, 51 F.3d 770, 773 (8th Cir.1995) (court of appeals considers jurisdiction on its own motion). A section 3582(c)(2) motion is not a civil postconviction action, but a continuation of a criminal case. See United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir.2003) (per curiam); see also United States v. Petty, 82 F.3d 809, 810 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (time limits for appealing in criminal cases apply to appeal from denial of § 3582(c)(2) motion). A magistrate judge may enter judgment in a civil action with consent of the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), while a district judge may designate a magistrate judge to prepare proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of applications for post-trial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 F. App'x 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-todd-matthews-ca8-2008.