US v. Francis David Sherman


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00039-JPJ-RSB-1,1:13-cv-80587-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999705765]. Mailed to: Francis David Sherman UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY USP COLEMAN II P. O. Box 1034 Coleman, FL 33521-0879. [15-7483]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7483 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANCIS DAVID SHERMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00039-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:13-cv-80587-JPJ-RSB) Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis David Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7483 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Francis David Sherman appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen the period to note an appeal from the district court’s order § 2255 (2012) motion. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. Sherman’s motion asserted that he did not receive a copy of the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Sherman filed his motion to reopen the period to note an appeal more than 180 days after the district court’s order denying his § 2255 motion, the district court lacked authority to reopen the appeal period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral affirm the argument adequately district because presented in court’s the the facts order. We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?