[Download] "United States v. Vance" by United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: United States v. Vance
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
- Release Date : January 28, 1980
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 52 KB
Description
Order BEFORE: WEICK, MARTIN and JONES, Circuit Judges Upon consideration of the defendant-appellant's motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from an order denying his motion to reduce his sentence filed under Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, It appears from a careful review of the district Court record that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the defendant has not filed his notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the District Court's order denying his motion to reduce his sentence. See Rule 4(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Hixon v. United States, 268 F.2d 667 (10th Cir. 1959); United States v. Quon, 241 F.2d 161 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 913 (1957). The timely filing of the notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to this Court's jurisdiction which this Court can neither waive nor extend. Rule 26(b), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978); United States v. Hoye, 548 F.2d 1271 (6th Cir. 1977). Since it also appears that the District Court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the defendant-appellant's motion to reduce his sentence, United States v. Sternman, 433 F.2d 913 (6th Cir. 1970); Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 603 F.2d 438 (3rd Cir. 1979); United States v. Alonzo, 600 F.2d 16 (5th Cir. 1979), the District Court correctly declined to extend the time within which the defendant could timely file his notice of appeal. It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be and hereby is denied; and, it is further ORDERED that this appeal be and hereby is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 9(d)1, Rules of the Sixth Circuit.