Carrasco v. USA

Filing 16

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting in part and denying in part 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 6/19/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-298-RJC
(3:13-cr-199-RJC-1)
FRED CARRASCO, JR.,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
_______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner’s “Motion for
Reconsideration re [] Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief.” (Doc. No. 15).
On June 6, 2016, Petitioner filed the underlying motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. No. 1). On October 13, 2016, this Court denied and
dismissed Petitioner’s motion to vacate on the merits. (Doc. No. 8). Petitioner thereafter had
sixty days in which to file his notice of appeal, but such notice was never entered on this Court’s
docket. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i).
On April 12, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion, seeking an order from this Court vacating and
amending the judgment dated October 13, 2016, so that Petitioner may file a timely appeal.
(Doc. No. 10). On January 8, 2018, this Court entered an order finding that the Court is without
jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s motion to file an untimely appeal. (Doc. No. 11). On March 6,
2018, Petitioner filed a document in this Court, which the Clerk’s office docketed as a “Notice of
Appeal.” (Doc. No. 12). On April 24, 2018, Petitioner filed the pending motion, captioned as a
“Request for Clarification,” in which he states that the document filed in this Court on March 6,
1

2018, and currently docketed as Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal, was not intended to be filed as a
Notice of Appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather, he states that “he was asking
this court to review its own order, in light of the case law and facts that he cited in Doc. 12.”
(Doc. No. 15 at 1).
Based on the foregoing, the Court instructs the Clerk to docket the document identified as
Docket No. 12, as a “Motion for Reconsideration” and to notify the Fourth Circuit that Petitioner
did not intend for this document to be filed as a Notice of Appeal in this matter. Furthermore,
the Court will deny the “Motion for Reconsideration” filed on March 6, 2018, for the same
reasons that the Court has already found that this Court is without jurisdiction to grant
Petitioner’s motion to file an untimely appeal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that
(1) Petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration re 11 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief,” (Doc. No. 15), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons
stated in this Order. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (docketed initially as a
“Notice of Appeal”), (Doc. No. 12), is DENIED.
Signed: June 19, 2018

2