Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto

556 F.2d 1217

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1977-08-04
Topic: general

PER CURIAM: Appellants seek review of the denial of their motion to reduce sentence under Fed. R.Crim.P. 35. As recorded in the docket entry, the court denied the motion December 1, 1976. Appellants filed a notice of appeal December 15, 1976. Under Fed.R.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jose Luis Herrera Guiterrez and Jose Herrera Nieto. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 31 opinions

UNITED STATES v. GUITERREZ,556 F.2d 1217(5th Cir. 1977)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSE LUIS HERRERA GUITERREZ

AND JOSE HERRERA NIETO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

No. 77-1034.

Summary Calendar.^fn*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 4, 1977.

Rodert Nino, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, George A. Kelt, Jr., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] Appellants seek review of the denial of their motion to reduce sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P.35. As recorded in the docket entry, the court denied the motion December 1, 1976. Appellants filed a notice of appeal December 15, 1976. Under Fed.R.App.P.4(b), the appeal was untimely.

[2] A rule 35 motion is a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution.See Heflin v. United States,358 U.S. 415,418n. 7,79 S.Ct. 451,3 L.Ed.2d 407(1959). Accordingly, the 10 day limitation of Fed.R.App.P.4(b) governs. Appellants' counsel may be charged with knowledge of the difference between a rule 35 motion and a petition under28 U.S.C. § 2255.Page 1218

[3] We remand the case to allow the district court to determine whether excusable neglect entitles appellants to an extension of the time for appeal.

[4] REMANDED.

Rule 18, 5 Cir.,Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. CitizensCasualty Company of New York et al.,5 Cir., 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩