United States v. Richardson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT March 16, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50834
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAMELA RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(7:04-CR-214-ALL)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pamela Richardson appeals: (1) the sentence for her
guilty-plea conviction of eight counts of mail fraud, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; and (2) the denial of her Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 35(a) motion.
Richardson did not file a notice of appeal from the denial of
her Rule 35(a) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (requiring
criminal defendant to file notice of appeal within ten days of “the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
entry of either the judgment or the order being appealed”).
Appeals from denials of Rule 35 motions are controlled by the ten-
day period dictated by Rule 4(b)(1)(A). United States v. Garcia-
Machado, 845 F.2d 492, 493 (5th Cir. 1988). A timely notice of
appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction.
United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because Richardson failed to file a notice of appeal for this
denial, we lack jurisdiction to review her challenges to that
decision.
Richardson did timely appeal from the final judgment of
conviction and sentence. FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). She contends
the district court erred in determining the amount of loss
attributable to her for sentencing purposes. We review the court’s
interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo; its factual findings, for clear error. E.g., United States
v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). A district court’s
amount-of-loss determination is not clearly erroneous if it is
plausible in the light of the record as a whole. E.g., United
States v. Oates, 122 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1997). Along this
line, the loss calculation was not clearly erroneous. See id.DISMISSED in PART; AFFIRMED in PART
2