Monte Winston v. Patricia Stansberry

Filing 920100623

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7766 MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Petitioner Appellant, v. PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Respondent Appellee. No. 09-7854 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge; M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:99-cr00030-REP-1; 3:08-cv-00553-MHL) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior No. 09-7766 affirmed; No. 09-7854 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monte Decarlos Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prillaman, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Monte Decarlos Winston, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2006) petition, 1 which challenged the Bureau of Prisons' computation of his sentence. criminal case. REP-1 (E.D. Winston also filed a notice of appeal in his See United States v. Winston, No. 3:99-cr-00030May 27, 2003). These appeals have been Va. consolidated, because both informal briefs demonstrate Winston's intent to appeal the district court's order denying his 2241 petition similar. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Winston's and the issues raised therein are substantially 2241 petition for the reasons stated by the district court. See Winston v. Stansberry, No. 3:08-cv-00553-MHL (E.D. Va. July 21, 2009). Further, we dismiss as duplicative the appeal filed in Winston's criminal case. 2 Pursuant to the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2006), this case was decided by a magistrate judge. To the extent that Winston appeals his underlying criminal judgment, the appeal is subject to dismissal due to its untimeliness. Winston's criminal judgment was entered on May 28, 2003, and Winston's notice of appeal was filed on August 10, 2009. Accordingly, the appeal of Winston's criminal judgment is exceedingly late. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 2 1 3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional would process. No. 09-7766 AFFIRMED No. 09-7854 DISMISSED 4

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?