USA v. Royce Newton
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11670 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: ECP, Judge: JEG. Mandate issue date is 12/07/2017; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Royce Newton [8403573-2] [16-11670]
Date Filed: 11/15/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
November 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-234-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Royce Newton, federal prisoner # 25725-177, pleaded guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to the statutory maximum
sentence of 120 months of imprisonment.
Proceeding pro se, Newton
challenges the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(1). He also
moves for appointment of counsel.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 11/15/2017
As Newton acknowledges, he did not file a timely notice of appeal
following the district court’s October 13, 2016 order denying the Government’s
Rule 35(b)(1) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Newton’s pro se motion
requesting the district court to reconsider its denial of the Government’s Rule
35(b)(1) motion was filed more than 14 days after entry of the district court’s
October 13, 2016 order. Thus, Newton’s pro se motion cannot serve as a motion
to reconsider that judgment. See United States v Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449,
1466 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, to the extent that Newton appeals the denial of his
pro se motion, he “has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized
motion” that had no jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d
140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because a timely notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional prerequisite in
criminal cases, see United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir.
2007), we can review the underlying order denying the Government’s Rule
35(b)(1) motion. However, Newton has failed to show that the district court’s
decision was illegal “or a gross abuse of discretion.” See United States v.
Nerren, 613 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED. Newton’s motion for appointment of counsel is
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?