UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4105
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM L. JOHNSON, a/k/a Buddy,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-02-148)
Submitted: March 26, 2004 Decided: April 21, 2004
Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barron M. Helgoe, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE, LLP, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney,
Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William L. Johnson pled guilty to distribution of cocaine
base (crack) and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment. His
attorney filed a timely notice of appeal on January 16, 2003.
However, Johnson filed a pro se motion for reconsideration of the
sentence that was received in the district court the following day.
We remanded his case to allow the district court to determine
whether Johnson’s pro se motion for reconsideration of his sentence
was filed, pursuant to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), before
his attorney filed the notice of appeal. On remand, the district
court determined that the motion for reconsideration was filed on
January 15, 2003, a day before the notice of appeal was filed, and
that the district court thus retained jurisdiction to consider the
motion. The district court has not yet ruled on the motion for
reconsideration.
When a timely motion for reconsideration is filed in a
criminal case, the ten-day appeal period does not begin to run
until after the motion to reconsider has been decided by the
district court. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 4 n.2
(1991); United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 7-8 (1976); United
States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77-79 (1964); United States v.
Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 767 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly,
Johnson’s notice of appeal is premature.
- 2 -
While the disposition of a motion for reconsideration by
the district court has been held to establish jurisdiction in the
appeals court, see United States v. Jackson, 950 F.2d 633, 636
(10th Cir. 1991), Johnson’s notice of appeal will not be effective
until the district court disposes of the motion to reconsider.
We are, therefore, constrained to remand this case once
more so that the district court may rule on the motion for
reconsideration. The parties should inform this Court when the
district court has ruled and provide a copy of the order disposing
of the motion to reconsider.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
REMANDED
- 3 -