From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Guiterrez

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 4, 1977
556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1977)

Opinion

No. 77-1034. Summary Calendar.

Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

August 4, 1977.

Rodert Nino, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U.S. Atty., Anna E. Stool, George A. Kelt, Jr., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

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

Before GOLDBERG, CLARK and FAY, Circuit Judges.



Appellants seek review of the denial of their motion to reduce sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. As recorded in the docket entry, the court denied the motion December 1, 1976. Appellants filed a notice of appeal December 15, 1976. Under Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), the appeal was untimely.

A rule 35 motion is a proceeding in the original criminal prosecution. See Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 418 n. 7, 79 S.Ct. 451, 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959). Accordingly, the 10 day limitation of Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) governs. Appellants' counsel may be charged with knowledge of the difference between a rule 35 motion and a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

We remand the case to allow the district court to determine whether excusable neglect entitles appellants to an extension of the time for appeal.

REMANDED.


Summaries of

United States v. Guiterrez

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 4, 1977
556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1977)
Case details for

United States v. Guiterrez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSE LUIS HERRERA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Aug 4, 1977

Citations

556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

United States v. Scott

If this is a direct appeal from Scott's criminal proceeding, however, then we have no jurisdiction. The…

United States v. Ward

Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). The rule authorizes a thirty-day extension upon a finding by the district court that the…