United States v. Longenette , 24 F. App'x 138 ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7234
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM D. LONGENETTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-90-136)
Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 6, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
William D. Longenette, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow,
Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William D. Longenette appeals from the district court’s March
7, 2001, order denying relief on his claims regarding his fine and
incarceration and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion. We dismiss the appeal from the March 7, 2001, order
for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed
beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Re-
garding the district court’s order denying Longenette’s Rule 60(b)
motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin-
ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court.* United States v. Longenette, No.
CR-90-136 (N.D.W. Va. July 9, 2001); United States v. Williams, 674
F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982). 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
*
The motion to expedite the appeal, filed on November 29,
2001, became moot on the filing of this opinion and, accordingly,
is dismissed.
2