USA v. Daniel Collin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-30125 Affirmed] Judge: FPB, Judge: LHS, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 10/18/2017 [17-30125]
Case: 17-30125
Document: 00514172734
Page: 1
Date Filed: 09/27/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-30125
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANIEL WAYNE COLLINS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50170-4
Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Daniel Wayne Collins pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to
distribute methamphetamine and one charge of possession of a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking offense. He was sentenced to serve 168 months
in prison on the former charge, to run consecutively to a 60-month sentence on
the latter charge, as well as five years on supervised release. The district court
denied both his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence and the
ensuing motion for reconsideration.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*
Case: 17-30125
Document: 00514172734
Page: 2
Date Filed: 09/27/2017
No. 17-30125
Collins’s notice of appeal is, as the Government asserts, untimely as to
the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence because it was not filed within
14 days of the court’s order denying the motion.
See FED. R. APP. P.
4(b)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000)
(explaining that § 3582 is a criminal provision and the time limit for filing a
notice of appeal in a criminal case is jurisdictional). However, the notice of
appeal was timely filed with respect to the district court’s denial of his motion
for reconsideration. Nonetheless, because Collins’s motion for reconsideration
was filed more than 14 days following the district court’s ruling on his
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, it was an unauthorized motion that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th
Cir. 1982). See also United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1993).
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?