United States v. Pee ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7355
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BILLY JEROME PEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-96-398, CA-98-719-4)
Submitted: December 12, 2001 Decided: January 9, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Billy Jerome Pee, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Billy Jerome Pee appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to compel the Government to file a Fed. R. Crim. P.
35(b) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider. We dismiss in
part and affirm in part.
Pee’s motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) was denied by the district
court on June 5, 2001. Pee failed to file a notice of appeal from
this order within the ten day period provided by Fed. R. App. P.
4(b). See United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 528-29 (4th Cir.
1985). We therefore dismiss Pee’s appeal as it relates to the June
5 order for lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to Pee’s motion to reconsider, we have reviewed
the record and the district court's opinion and find that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion. See
id.; cf. Nilson Van & Storage v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 362, 364 (4th Cir.
1985) (holding a district court has jurisdiction to entertain
motion for reconsideration filed in a criminal case from an order
denying relief when the motion is filed before the order sought to
be reconsidered becomes final). On that basis, we affirm the
denial of relief on Pee’s 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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
2