United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janet P. Moore, Defendant-Appellant., 16 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 1994)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (January 13, 1994)

Docket number: 93-6539


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/america-plaintiff-janet-moore-defendant-36087462
Id. vLex: VLEX-36087462

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Byron Jones, A/K/a Carl Lee, A/K/a 'B', Defendant - Appellant., 215 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - US v. Jones (4th Cir. 2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - in Re: Byron Jones, A/K/a Carl Lee, A/K/a B, Movant., 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2000)

Text:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (CR-83-200-HM)

Janet P. Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Juliet Ann Eurich, Office of the U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

D.Md.

Affirmed.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and SPROUSE, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Janet Patricia Moore appeals the district court's order denying her motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 35(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., applicable to offenses committed prior to November 1, 1987. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.

Moore was convicted in 1983 and sentenced to fifty years for conspiracy to violate civil rights resulting in death, tampering with a witness, and aiding and abetting. The Supreme Court denied Moore's petition for certiorari in May 1990. Moore's motion was filed April 27, 1993, almost three years after the Supreme Court's action. Under the applicable Rule 35(b), a motion to reduce a sentence may be made within 120 days after entry of an order of the Supreme Court denying review of a judgment of conviction.* The time limitations of Rule 35 are jurisdictional. United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 189 (1979). Therefore, Moore's motion is untimely.

Accordingly, we deny Moore's motions for the appointment of counsel and oral argument and affirm the district court's denial of Moore's motion.

AFFIRMED

* The rule contains other time provisions which are inapplicable here

Other documents:
DOODY V. SCHRIRO (9th Cir. 2009) | Active Control Financing-First Tranche Closed, Order Back-Log Shipping. | Richtlijn 2009/45/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 6mei 2009 inzake veiligheids... | Acórdão Nº 2003.37.00.011787-5 of Tribunal Regional Federal da 1a Região, of August 21, 2007 | LJN: AR3153, Hoge Raad, C03/252HR | Decisão Monocrática Nº 70026913285 of Tribunal de Justiça do RS Primeira Câmara Especial Cível of October 21 2008 | Israel bombardea Gaza tras crear un area de seguridad en el norte | Minicuento ferroviario | ÓPERA Piano y langostinos | DECRETO LEGISLATIVO Nº 125 DE 02 DE FEVEREIRO DE 2004 Aprova o Ato que Autoriza a Associação Comunitaria de Radio Educação e Cultur... | Acórdão Inteiro Teor of 5ª Turma nº A-AIRR-261/2004-005-01-40.2, of May 02, 2007 | Decreti Cautelare of T.A.R - Liguria Genova n 321 of September 23 2006 | Decreti Decisorio of T.A.R - Marche Ancona nº 1654 of November 25 2003