U.S. v. BOULER, 12-6617. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120620111
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (2006). As we have recognized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 , 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582 (2006). As we have recognized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 , 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident ..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). As we have recognized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident from the record that Bouler is ineligible for the sentence reduction that she seeks.* Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. United States v. Bouler, No. 3:07-cr-00010-FDW-3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2012) 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.
AFFIRMED.
FootNotes
* We note as well that Bouler's notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless, because Rule 4(b)'s time limits are not jurisdictional, because the Government has not invoked the time bar, and because we do not find that the delay was inordinate, we decline to dismiss Bouler's appeal on the grounds of untimeliness. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
Source: Leagle
