United States v. Sales , 83 F. App'x 512 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 03-4070
    AMIR SALES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-02-4-A)
    Submitted: September 30, 2003
    Decided: December 15, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Christopher B. Amolsch, LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER
    AMOLSCH, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
    United States Attorney, Michael J. Elston, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    2                       UNITED STATES v. SALES
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Amir Sales pled guilty to one count of distributing a quantity of
    opium in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a) (2000), and was sentenced
    to a term of forty-six months’ imprisonment.1 After the ten-day appeal
    period had expired, he mailed a pro se motion for reconsideration of
    his sentence to the district court. The envelope was postmarked
    December 19, 2002, and the motion was filed on December 23, 2002.
    Sales challenged the quantity of opium for which he was held
    accountable and stated that his attorney’s representation had been
    "completely inadequate." The district court denied the motion on
    December 30, 2002. On January 10, 2003, with new counsel, Sales
    appealed from the order denying his motion for reconsideration of his
    sentence.
    Because Sales did not file a timely appeal from the judgment order,
    we lack jurisdiction to review issues relating to his sentencing. In
    criminal cases, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten
    days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or
    without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to
    file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good
    cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). These time periods are mandatory and
    jurisdictional. United States v. Raynor, 
    939 F.2d 191
    , 196 (4th Cir.
    1991). Judgment was entered in Sales’ case on November 25, 2002.
    He did not file a notice of appeal from the judgment and he does not
    assert that he informed his attorney that he wished to note an appeal.
    A timely motion for reconsideration may extend the time for filing
    a notice of appeal, but Sales does not benefit from this principle.
    1
    Under the terms of his plea agreement, Sales waived the right to
    appeal his sentence. However, because the joint appendix does not con-
    tain a transcript of the guilty plea colloquy, we are unable to determine
    whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v.
    Wessells, 
    936 F.2d 165
    , 168 (4th Cir. 1991) (waiver is ineffective where
    district court fails to question defendant about it at Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
    hearing). The government mentions the waiver in its brief, but does not
    request dismissal of the appeal.
    UNITED STATES v. SALES                          3
    Although "the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not specifi-
    cally provide for motions for reconsideration and prescribe the time
    in which they must be filed," Nilson Van & Storage Co. v. Marsh, 
    755 F.2d 362
    , 364 (4th Cir. 1985), the Supreme Court has held that a
    motion for rehearing or reconsideration extends the time for filing a
    notice of appeal in a criminal case if the motion is filed before the
    order sought to be reconsidered becomes final. See United States v.
    Ibarra, 
    502 U.S. 1
    , 4 n.2 (1991) (holding that would-be appellants
    who file a timely motion for reconsideration from a criminal judg-
    ment are entitled to the full time period for noticing the appeal after
    the motion to reconsider has been decided).
    For Sales’ motion for reconsideration to have been timely filed
    under Houston v. Lack, 
    487 U.S. 266
     (1988), he would have had to
    deliver it to prison officials for mailing by December 10, 2002, nine
    days before the postmark date. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a) (providing
    that "intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays" are
    excluded only when time period is less than eleven days). Sales does
    not claim to have delivered the motion to prison officials by Decem-
    ber 10, 2002. We conclude that Sales has forfeited his right to contest
    the district court’s determination at the sentencing hearing of the
    quantity of opium attributable to him and his eligibility for the safety
    valve reduction.
    Sales’ appeal from the order denying his motion for reconsidera-
    tion was timely. Under Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
    Procedure, the district court may, within seven days after sentencing,
    correct a sentence for arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. Oth-
    erwise, the court may not alter a sentence once it is imposed unless
    the government files a motion for a substantial assistance departure
    under Rule 35(b), the case is remanded for resentencing under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
     (2000), or when circumstances not present here permit
    sentence modification under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c) (2000). See United
    States v. Fraley, 
    988 F.2d 4
    , 67 (4th Cir. 1993) (construing former
    Rule 35(c), which has not been substantively amended since).
    Because it lacked authority to alter Sales’ sentence, the district court
    properly denied his motion for reconsideration.2
    2
    The government suggests that the motion for reconsideration might be
    treated as a motion to vacate under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000). Because
    Sales is represented in this appeal and his counsel does not characterize
    the motion as a § 2255 motion, we will not consider it a § 2255 motion.
    4                      UNITED STATES v. SALES
    We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for
    reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
    and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
    the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED