Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States v. Robert L. Merrifield
764 F.2d 436
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1985-07-01
- Topic
- general
timely notice of appeal is prerequisite to exercise of appellate jurisdiction
Citator
- Cited by
- 31 opinions
UNITED STATES v. MERRIFIELD,764 F.2d 436(5th Cir. 1985)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT L. MERRIFIELD,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 84-4746.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 1, 1985.
George Phillips, U.S. Atty., James B. Tucker, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RUBIN, RANDALL and TATE, Circuit Judges.
[2] Fed.R.App.P.4(b) provides that a notice of appeal in a criminal case "shall be filed in the district court within 10 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Fed.R.App.P.26(b) expressly prohibits the court from enlarging "the time for filing a notice of appeal,Page 437. . . ." Because the notice of appeal was filed well beyond the ten-day period and because a timely notice of appeal "is a `prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction'" by this court,1the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.2The fact that Merrifield has been proceedingpro sesince his sentencing "does not exempt [him] from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law," such as the requirement of timely filing.3
[3] Even if we were to treat Merrifield's appeal as an appeal from the denial of his motion to reduce sentence, it still would be untimely. "Such a motion is a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution. . . . Accordingly, the ten-day limitation of Fed.R.App.P.4(b) governs."4
[4] For these reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.Page 1035
- United States v. Burns,668 F.2d 855,858(5th Cir. 1982). ↩
- See also, United States v. Robinson,361 U.S. 220,229,80 S.Ct. 282,288,4 L.Ed.2d 259(1960);United States v.Schuchardt,685 F.2d 901,902(4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam);United States v. Stolarz,547 F.2d 108,109-10(9th Cir. 1976),cert. denied,434 U.S. 851,98 S.Ct. 162,54 L.Ed.2d 119(1977);see generally,9 Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 204.16 and 226.02[2] (2d ed. 1985). ↩
- Birl v. Estelle,660 F.2d 592,593(5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (citingFaretta v. California,422 U.S. 806,834n. 46,95 S.Ct. 2525n. 46,45 L.Ed.2d 562n. 46 (1975)). ↩
- United States v. Guiterrez,556 F.2d 1217(5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam). ↩