US v. Clement Wells

Filing 920090915

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6783

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)

Submitted:

September 10, 2009

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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,

No.

4:04-cr-00149-TLW-1

(D.S.C.

filed

Apr.

13,

2009;

entered

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

materials

would

decisional process. AFFIRMED

3