From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Granville

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 2, 1972
456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-3639.

March 2, 1972.

Paul Willoughby Granville pro. se.

Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Charles O. Farrar, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.


Granville is a federal prisoner presently serving a confinement sentence imposed December 18, 1969, from which no direct appeal was taken. He now appeals from the denial below of his motion to modify that sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The appellant has applied to this Court for appointment of counsel to prosecute this appeal. The record shows, however, that the motion for modification of sentence was filed some 20 months after the appellant's sentence had become final. Rule 35 provides that such a motion must be filed within 120 days after sentencing in a case in which no direct appeal was taken. Since no direct appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence in this case, the court below lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, and this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 45(b), F.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Gorman, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 632; United States v. Ellenbogen, 2 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 537, cert. denied 1968, 393 U.S. 918, 89 S.Ct. 241, 21 L.Ed.2d 206.

The appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

United States v. Granville

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 2, 1972
456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

United States v. Granville

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. PAUL WILLOUGHBY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 2, 1972

Citations

456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

United States v. Norton

We have consistently held that the 120-day time limit is jurisdictional. United States v. Gorman, 5 Cir.,…

United States v. Mendoza

Instead, it specifically refers to the time within which the district court may act: "The court may reduce a…