US v. Clement Wells
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CLEMENT JEREMIAH WELLS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:04-cr-00149-TLW-1)
September 10, 2009
September 15, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clement Jeremiah Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Clement Jeremiah Wells appeals the district court's
margin order denying his Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider his conviction and sentence. Wells filed his Rule 60(b) motion more
than three years after this court affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See United States v. Wells, 148 F. Although
App'x 174 (4th Cir. Sept. 20, 2005) (No. 04-5084).
"the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time in which they must be filed," Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir. 1985), a motion for rehearing or reconsideration in a criminal case extends the time for filing a notice of appeal if the motion is filed before the order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United States v. Ibarra,
502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2 (1991) (holding would-be appellant who files timely motion for reconsideration from criminal judgment
entitled to full time period for noticing appeal after motion for reconsideration has been decided). Wells submitted his Rule 60(b) motion well beyond the applicable period of time provided to notice an appeal of the judgment he sought the district court to reconsider. Moreover,
Wells received review of the district court's judgment on direct appeal to this court. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court's order denying the motion. 2
See United States v. Wells,
Apr. 14, 2009). facts and legal before
We dispense with oral argument because the contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the
decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?