Winston v. Stansberry , 384 F. App'x 240 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7766
MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY,
Respondent – Appellee.
No. 09-7854
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MONTE DECARLOS WINSTON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge; M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:99-cr-
00030-REP-1; 3:08-cv-00553-MHL)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 09-7766 affirmed; No. 09-7854 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Monte Decarlos Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prillaman,
Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Monte Decarlos Winston, a federal prisoner, appeals
the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006)
petition, 1 which challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ computation of
his sentence. Winston also filed a notice of appeal in his
criminal case. See United States v. Winston, No. 3:99-cr-00030-
REP-1 (E.D. Va. May 27, 2003). These appeals have been
consolidated, because both informal briefs demonstrate Winston’s
intent to appeal the district court’s order denying his § 2241
petition and the issues raised therein are substantially
similar.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Winston’s
§ 2241 petition for the reasons stated by the district court.
See Winston v. Stansberry, No. 3:08-cv-00553-MHL (E.D. Va.
July 21, 2009). Further, we dismiss as duplicative the appeal
filed in Winston’s criminal case. 2
1
Pursuant to the parties’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
(2006), this case was decided by a magistrate judge.
2
To the extent that Winston appeals his underlying criminal
judgment, the appeal is subject to dismissal due to its
untimeliness. Winston’s criminal judgment was entered on
May 28, 2003, and Winston’s notice of appeal was filed on
August 10, 2009. Accordingly, the appeal of Winston’s criminal
judgment is exceedingly late. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
3
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.
No. 09-7766 AFFIRMED
No. 09-7854 DISMISSED
4