United States v. Vernon R. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Vernon R. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Gregory v. Brown (ca2, 1997-03-18) · Strongest negative: United States v. Steven Brewer (ca5, 1995-07-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" United States v. Steven Brewer
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see United States v. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212 (8th Cir.1992) (applying Fed.R.App.P. 26(a) without discussing applicability of Fed.R.Crim.P. 45).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Gregory v. Brown
2d Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 43 (5th Cir.1995) (finding Fed.R.App.P. 4(b) applicable to judgment revoking term of supervised release); United States v. Patterson, 982 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam ) (same); United States v. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212, 1212 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam ) (same). 9 Although the government fails to raise this matter, we must do so sua sponte, as timeliness of a defendant's notice of appeal implicates our jurisdictional authority.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Larry M. Lilly
7th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212, 1212 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam); see also United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484 (5th Cir.1998) (stating that an appeal from the denial of the defendant’s motion for a modification of the terms of his supervised release was timely because the notice of appeal was filed within 10 days of the district court’s decision); United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir.1998) (applying Rule 4(b) to a defendant’s appeal from an order revoking the defendant’s supervised release); United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 42-43 (5th Cir.1995) (sa…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lilly, Larry M.
7th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Johnson, 980 F.2d 1212, 1212 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); see also United States v. Jeanes, 150 F.3d 483, 484 (5th Cir. 1998) (stating that an appeal from the denial of the defendant’s motion for a modification of the terms of his supervised release was timely because the notice of appeal was filed within 10 days of the district court’s decision); United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1998) (applying Rule 4(b) to a defendant’s appeal from an order revoking the defendant’s supervised release); United States v. Clark, 51 F.3d 42, 42-43 (5th Cir. 1995)…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Vernon R. JOHNSON, Appellant
92-2493.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 3, 1992.
980 F.2d 1212
George T. Babcock, Omaha, Neb., argued, for appellant., Michael P. Norris, Asst. U.S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., argued, for appellee.
Fagg, Beam, Hansen.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Vernon R. Johnson commenced serving a term of supervised release on January 13, 1992. On May 7, 1992, the district court [1] entered a judgment revoking Johnson’s term of supervised release and requiring Johnson to be imprisoned for fourteen additional months and then to complete the balance of his remaining term of supervised release. On May 20, 1992, Johnson filed a motion to reconsider. The motion was denied on June 24, 1992. On July 2, 1992, Johnson filed his notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.

“The Supreme Court has held that timely notice for rehearing or reconsideration tolls the running of the statutory period for filing an appeal.” United States v. Woodruff, 596 F.2d 798, 799 (8th Cir.1979) (discussing Browder v. Director, Ill. Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976); and United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 84 S.Ct. 553, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964)). “An untimely request does not have the same result.” Browder, 434 U.S. at 267, 98 S.Ct. at 562. Absent a rule specifying the time in which a motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed, “a petition for rehearing in a criminal ease would be considered timely ‘when filed within the original period for review.’ ” Id. at 268, 98 S.Ct. at 563 (quoting Healy, 376 U.S. at 78, 84 S.Ct. at 555). In a criminal case, a defendant must file his notice of appeal within 10 days of the entry of the judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(i).

In this case, the judgment was entered on Thursday, May 7, 1992. The last day for filing a notice of appeal was Monday, May 18, 1992. (The tenth day fell on Sunday, May 17, 1992.) The motion to reconsider was not filed until Wednesday, May 20, 1992. Because the motion was filed twelve rule days after the judgment was[*1213] filed, it was filed two days too late. See ' Fed.R.App.P. 26(a). The untimely motion to reconsider did not toll the time allowed' for filing a notice of appeal. Failure to file a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect. Therefore, Johnson’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable William G. Cambridge, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska.