US v. Johnny Dillard
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JOHNNY OTIS DILLARD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (4:03-cr-70134-nkm-4)
May 21, 2009
June 1, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Otis Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Johnny Otis Dillard appeals the district court's
denial of his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Dillard We affirm. guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), for which the district court sentenced him to 100 months'
imprisonment and five years supervised release. Dillard filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. 2008. Almost six The court denied the motion on August 8, months after the entry of judgment, in
February of 2009, Dillard filed another § 3582 motion seeking relief on the same grounds as his original § 3582 motion.
Because the district court had previously acted on Dillard's first motion for reduction of sentence, it construed the motion as one for reconsideration. "[T]he specifically Federal Rules of Criminal for Procedure do not and
prescribe the time in which they must be filed." Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th
Nilson Van & Cir. 1985).
However, the Supreme Court has held that a motion for rehearing or reconsideration extends the 2 time for filing a notice of
appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the order sought to be reconsidered becomes final, and the period for filing an appeal starts after the motion for reconsideration has been ruled on. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1
(1991); United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993). beyond Because the Dillard of filed the his ten motion day to reconsider to appeal, well the
district court properly dismissed it as untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
United States v. Dillard, No. 4:03-cr-70134-nkm-4 (W.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2009). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
contentions the court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?