Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv- 00526-HEH) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv- 00526-HEH) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-
00526-HEH)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Amezquita-Franco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Amezquita-Franco seeks to appeal the district court’s August 2016 order
dismissing as successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Amezquita-Franco filed his notice of appeal
well beyond the 60-day appeal period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), and the appeal itself is
duplicative of a prior appeal of the same order, United States v. Amezquita-Franco, 675
F. App’x 335 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 16-7111) (denying certificate of appealability and
dismissing appeal). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as untimely and duplicative. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
2