United States v. Roy Francis Curry & Kenneth Herbert Caiata, 760 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Roy Francis Curry & Kenneth Herbert Caiata, 760 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in a criminal case the final judgment means the sentence. the sentence is the judgment.”
30 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Jutaurio Clemons (ca11, 2026-04-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Jutaurio Clemons
11th Cir. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a criminal case the final judgment the sentence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Reginald Brown
11th Cir. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a criminal case the final judgment the sen- tence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Kelvin Laron Howard
11th Cir. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a criminal case the final judg- ment means the sentence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Keeo Miller
11th Cir. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in a criminal case the final judgment means the sentence. the sentence is the judgment.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marquett James
11th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Shalhoub, 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Nicholas Craig Woozencroft
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
The sentence is the judgment.” United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (citing Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 , 212–13 (1937)). 3 In Wilson, the defendant was convicted on six counts, but the district court only sentenced him as to three counts in both the oral pronouncement and the written judgment. 440 F.2d 1103 , 1104 (5th Cir. 1971).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Pierre C. Marc (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
The sentence is the judgment.” United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985); see also Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212-13 (1937).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roger Amado Garcia
11th Cir. · 2019 · confidence medium
United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079 (11th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dino Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Attorney General
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1080 (11th Cir.1985) (premature notice of appeal following jury verdict in criminal case was effective to perfect appeal as of date when defendant was sentenced).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dino Jimenez-Morales v. U.S. Attorney General
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1080 (11th Cir. 1985) (premature notice of appeal following jury verdict in criminal case was effective to perfect appeal as of date when defendant was sentenced).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimmy Lee Williams, United States of America v. Jimmy Lee Williams
4th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 152-56 (5th Cir.1991); United States v. Cortes, 895 F.2d 1245, 1247 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 905-06 (3d Cir.1987); United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Moore, 616 F.2d 1030, 1031-32 (7th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Vicente Joaquin Gonzalez, and Hector Berrios Colon, United States of America v. Vicente Joaquin Gonzalez & Hector Berrios Colon
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Nor did he make any such assertion below in requesting an extension 5 This sentence states: "A notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision, sentence or order but before entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof." 6 See United States v. Winn, 948 F.2d 145, 154-56 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 60 U.S.L.W. 3688 (U.S. April 6, 1992); United States v. Cronan, 937 F.2d 163, 164-65 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. Green, 847 F.2d 622, 623-25 (10th Cir. 1988); United …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. James Cronan
5th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
See United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir.1990); United States v. Wade, 841 F.2d 331, 332 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (citing Lemke v. United States, 346 U.S. 325 , 74 S.Ct. 1 , 98 L.Ed. 3 (1953)); United States v. Hashagen, 816 F.2d 899, 906 (3d Cir.1987) (en banc); United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam); United States v. Moore, 616 F.2d 1030, 1031-32 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 987 , 100 S.Ct. 2972 , 64 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980)). 2 Especially persuasive is the analysis contained in most of these opinions 3 that relies upon the fact that …
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Hashagen, Clinton Charles (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Circuit followed the Moore interpretation of the rule and rejected the Mathews approach in part because “Mathews was decided before the 1979 amendment to Rule 4, and Moore after the amendment.” Curry, 760 F.2d at 1080 (footnote omitted).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Tyquavious Jaquan Landrum
11th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (11th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Annamalai Annamalai
11th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079 , 1079– 80 (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining that, in a criminal case, a “premature notice of appeal is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date the sentence is entered as the judgment”); see also OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344, 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “when [an] appeal is from a final judgment, the fact that the appeal substantively concerns an interlocutory ruling is no bar to jurisdiction”).
cited Cited "see" REDFORD v. SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
M.D. Ga. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1080 (11th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Daniel Lafitte Dumonde
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (holding that a premature notice of appeal made before judgment and conviction are entered is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date the sentence was entered as the judgment).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Michael Kapelushnik
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that, where defendant filed notice of appeal after verdict but before sentencing, “premature notice of appeal is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date the sentence is entered as the judgment.”).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Thomas Howard Garrison (2×)
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Curry, 760 F.2d 1079, 1080 (11th Cir.1985) (noting differences between 4(a)(1) and 4(b)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roy Francis CURRY and Kenneth Herbert Caiata, Defendants-Appellants
84-5953.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 29, 1985.
760 F.2d 1079
Vincent P. McGhee, McGhee & Sharpe, Miami, Fla., for Curry., Bronis & Pórtela, P.A., Stephen J. Bronis, Miami, Fla., for Caiata., Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for United States.
Godbold, Kravitch, Hatchett.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #29,044 of 633,719
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (3)
PER CURIAM:

Appellant Curry filed a notice of appeal following a jury verdict of guilty but prior to sentencing and before judgment and conviction were entered. No new notice of appeal was filed after sentencing. The court has raised of its own motion the question of whether it has jurisdiction of Curry’s appeal.

In a criminal case the notice of appeal is to be filed in district court within ten days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Rule 4(b) FRAP. In a criminal case the final judgment means the sentence. The sentence is the judgment. Berman v. U.S., 302 U.S. 211, 212-213, 58 S.Ct. 164, 165-66, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937). We agree with the Seventh Circuit decision in U.S. v. Moore, 616 F.2d 1030 (1980) that in circumstances like those before us the premature notice of appeal is effective to perfect an appeal as of the date[*1080] the sentence is entered as the judgment. The Seventh Circuit relied upon the fact that the premature notice of appeal gave full notice of the sentence and judgment that the defendant wanted to challenge. It therefore concluded that the premature notice was a mere irregularity governed by Rule 52(a): “Any error, defect or irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The court’s conclusion was buttressed by the 1979 amendment to Rule 4 FRAP. Rule 4(a) was amended to provide that a notice of appeal in a civil case, filed before the disposition of a post-trial motion, shall have no effect. No similar change was made in paragraph (b), covering appeals in criminal cases.

The Seventh Circuit distinguished U.S. v. Mathews, 462 F.2d 182 (3d Cir. 1972), in which after verdict and before sentencing the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. While the motion was pending he filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction entered March 9, 1979 [the date of the verdict], from an order entered the same day denying post-trial motions, and from the sentence to be imposed on April 16, 1979 [the date set for sentencing]. While it did not so state specifically the Seventh Circuit implied that this three-part notice did not give accurate notice of exactly what it was the defendant was seeking to appeal from. Moreover, Mathews was decided before the 1979 amendment to Rule 4, and Moore after the amendment. [1]

We hold that, in the circumstance of the present case, we have jurisdiction of Curry’s appeal.

1

. Also, while the Third Circuit held in Mathews that it had no jurisdiction it proceeded to examine all of appellant's contentions advanced in brief and oral argument and found them to be without merit.