Filed: Dec. 20, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50312 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CANDY BROWN JOHNSON, also known as Candace Brown Johnson, also known as Catherine Johnson, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-98-CR-38-ALL - December 16, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Candy Brown Johnson has appealed an amended jud
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-50312 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS CANDY BROWN JOHNSON, also known as Candace Brown Johnson, also known as Catherine Johnson, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-98-CR-38-ALL - December 16, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Candy Brown Johnson has appealed an amended judg..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50312
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
CANDY BROWN JOHNSON, also known as Candace Brown Johnson,
also known as Catherine Johnson,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CR-38-ALL
--------------------
December 16, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Candy Brown Johnson has appealed an amended judgment which
requires her to pay restitution immediately, rather than in
installments as provided in the judgment and commitment. However,
she failed to file a notice of appeal relative to the amending
order.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-50312
-2-
Rule 4(b)(1)(A)(i), Fed. R. App. P., provides in part that
“[i]n a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed
in the district court within 10 days after . . . the entry of
either the judgment or the order being appealed.
The Supreme Court has stated that “if no notice of appeal is
filed at all, the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to act. It
is well settled that the requirement of a timely notice of appeal
is mandatory and jurisdictional.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer
Discount Co.,
459 U.S. 56, 61 (1982) (citation and quotation marks
omitted); see United States v. Garcia-Machado,
845 F.2d 492, 493
(5th Cir. 1988) (same). Accordingly, Johnson’s appeal must be
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.