UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Stanley Duane
Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Jermaine Keitt appeals the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. United States v.
Keith, No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2010).
Additionally, Keitt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion.
Keitt’s 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 court’s order denying Keitt’s § 3582(c)(2)
motion. United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir.
2008); see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-13 (2007)
(noting that appeal periods in criminal cases are not
jurisdictional; rather, they are “claim-processing rules”
adopted by the Supreme Court that do not affect this court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Keith,
No. 5:07-cr-01020-MBS-1 (D.S.C. May 8, 2010). 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.
AFFIRMED
2