US v. Demond Jackson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:99-cr-00015-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999083900]. Mailed to: Demond Jackson. [12-7794]

Appeal: 12-7794

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/10/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEMOND JACKSON, a/k/a D.J.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00015-5)

Submitted:

February 20, 2013

Decided:

April 10, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Demond Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Gregory McVey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7794

Doc: 11

Filed: 04/10/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Demond Andre Jackson appeals from the district court’s
order denying the court’s own 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for
reduction
Sentencing

of

sentence

Guidelines

reconsideration.

The

under
and

the

2011

denying

court’s

initial

amendments

Jackson’s
order

was

to

the

motion

for

entered

on

January 13, 2012, and Jackson’s notice of appeal was untimely
filed, at the earliest, on October 5.
appeal

of

this

order

as

untimely.

We thus dismiss the
See

Fed.

R.

App.

P.

4(b)(1)(A) (providing for fourteen day appeal period in criminal
case); see also United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750
(10th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that court may raise timeliness of
criminal appeal sua sponte).
While Jackson’s appeal from the denial of his motion
for reconsideration was timely filed, the district court was
without jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration in
a § 3582 proceeding.

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d

233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010).
of this motion.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Accordingly, we affirm the denial

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2