Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Keitt, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. It affirms the district court's denial of Charles Keitt's Rule 36 motion and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion. While Keitt's appeal of the 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely, the Government did not seek to enforce the deadline. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It therefore affirmed the district court's denial of both motions for the reasons stated in the district court opinions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6143

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. It affirms the district court's denial of Charles Keitt's Rule 36 motion and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion. While Keitt's appeal of the 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely, the Government did not seek to enforce the deadline. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It therefore affirmed the district court's denial of both motions for the reasons stated in the district court opinions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    United States v. Keitt, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. It affirms the district court's denial of Charles Keitt's Rule 36 motion and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motion. While Keitt's appeal of the 3582(c)(2) motion was untimely, the Government did not seek to enforce the deadline. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's rulings. It therefore affirmed the district court's denial of both motions for the reasons stated in the district court opinions.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6143

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff Appellee,
    v.
    CHARLES JERMAINE KEITT,
    Defendant Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1)

    Submitted:

    June 1, 2010

    Decided:

    June 10, 2010

    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles Jermaine Keitt, Appellant Pro Se.


    Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Stanley
    Columbia,

    Duane
    South

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles

    Jermaine

    Keitt

    appeals

    the

    district

    order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion.


    the

    record

    Keith,

    and

    No.

    find

    no

    reversible

    5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1

    We have reviewed

    error.

    United

    (D.S.C.

    courts

    Jan.

    States

    11,

    v.

    2010).

    Additionally, Keitt seeks to appeal the district courts order


    denying

    relief

    on

    his

    18

    U.S.C.

    3582(c)(2)

    (2006)

    motion.

    Keitts notice of appeal as to the denial of his 3582(c)(2)


    motion was untimely; however, the Government has not sought to
    invoke Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) against Keitt.

    Therefore, we may

    consider the district courts order denying Keitts 3582(c)(2)


    motion.
    2008);

    United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir.


    see

    (noting

    Bowles

    that

    jurisdictional;

    v.

    appeal

    Russell,

    551

    periods

    in

    rather,

    they

    U.S.

    205,

    criminal

    are

    208-13

    cases

    (2007)

    are

    claim-processing

    not

    rules

    adopted by the Supreme Court that do not affect this courts


    subject-matter jurisdiction).
    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    We have reviewed the record and


    Accordingly,

    reasons stated by the district court.

    we

    affirm

    for

    the

    United States v. Keith,

    No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2010).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED
    2

    You might also like