United States v. James Russo, Jr., 760 F.2d 1229 (11th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. James Russo, Jr., 760 F.2d 1229 (11th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a rule 35 motion must be filed within the period of time allotted for the filing of a notice of an appeal in order to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.”
27 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Bennie C. Rivera (ca11, 2020-07-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Bennie C. Rivera
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a rule 35 motion must be filed within the period of time allotted for the filing of a notice of an appeal in order to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jacobo Feliciano-Francisco
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Reyes-Santiago
1st Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
“A motion for reconsideration in a criminal case must be filed within the period of time allotted for filing a notice of appeal in order to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.” See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roy Burns
11th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Edward Tyrone Farley
D.C. Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir.) (to be timely, motion for reconsideration must be filed within period allotted for noticing of appeal, i.e., ten days after entry of judgment in criminal case), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 982 , 102 S.Ct. 2255 , 72 L.Ed.2d 860 (1982); United States v. Miller, 869 F.2d 1418, 1421 (10th Cir.1989) (same); United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Torres-Gonzalez (2×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See United States v. Carr, 932 F.2d 67, 70 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 112 (1991); United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Torres-Gonzalez (2×) also: Cited "see"
1st Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
See United States v. ___ _____________ Carr, 932 F.2d 67, 70 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. ____ ____________ 112 (1991); United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th _____________ _____ Cir. 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kenneth Lyle Davis
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leo Victor Savage
6th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See United States v. Willis, 804 F.2d 961, 962 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 3 The motion for reconsideration was denied by an order entered on July 20, 1987.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Scott Fawcett
11th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 1230 .
cited Cited "see" Vincent Lee Ferguson v. United States
11th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (addressing denial of motion for reconsideration of denial of Fed.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Marvin Hinsey
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Jesus Arrate-Rodriguez
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review a Fed. *833 R.Crim.P. 35 motion to reduce sentence because the notice of appeal/motion for reconsideration was not timely filed).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Carlos C. Vicaria, M.D.
11th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mary C. McKee Granger
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229 (11th Cir.1985).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Herbert G. Miller II
10th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also United States v. Russo, 760 F.2d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir.1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James RUSSO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
84-3535.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
May 21, 1985.
760 F.2d 1229
Clyde M. Taylor, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Michael T. Simpson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Roney, Fay, Johnson.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. The Court lacks jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely.

The district court denied the Rule 35 motion on June 8, 1984. On June 22, 1984 appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 16, 1984 the motion was denied. A notice of appeal from the denial of the Rule 35 motion and the motion for reconsideration was filed on July 26, 1984.

A Rule 35 motion is a proceeding in the original criminal action in which a notice of appeal must be filed within ten days from the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). United States v. Guiterrez, 556 F.2d 1217 (5th Cir. 1977). This Court is without jurisdiction to review the district court’s June 8, 1984 order denying the Rule 35 motion since appeal was not noticed therefrom until July 26, 1984.

A motion for reconsideration of the denial of a Rule 35 motion must be filed within the period of time allotted for the filing of a notice of an appeal in order to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 982, 102 S.Ct. 2255, 72 L.Ed.2d 860 (1982). See United States v. Rothseiden, 680 F.2d 96, 97 (11th Cir.1982). In this case, the motion for reconsideration would have been timely only if filed within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b). The judgment denying the Rule 35 motion was rendered on June 8. The June 22 motion for reconsideration filed over ten days after entry of the order was therefore untimely. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration does not extend the time for appeal from the Rule 35 denial, and this Court is without jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. Cook, 670 F.2d at 48-49. There is no reason to remand for a finding of excusable neglect since the appeal was not noticed until more than forty days after the date of the original judgment. Fed.R. App.P. 4(b). See United States v. Shillingford, 568 F.2d 1106, 1107 (5th Cir. 1978).

This Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal so it must be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.