Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-4-2008
USA v. McKinnon
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-2290
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. McKinnon" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 161.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/161
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 07-2290 and 07-2523
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHAEL MCKINNON
Appellant
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 03-cr-00251)
District Judge: The Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
OCTOBER 31, 2008
BEFORE: McKEE, NYGAARD, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
*Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
(Filed: December 4, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
This consolidated appeal arises from the dismissal of three pro se motions filed by
McKinnon. The first two motions are the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2290,
and the third is the subject of the appeal at case number 07-2523. McKinnon filed these
pro se motions in the District Court while his direct appeal at case number 05-5314 was
pending before us. The District Court dismissed the three motions in these two cases
because it lacked jurisdiction. The filing of a notice of appeal removes a case from the
District Court and places it under our jurisdiction. The District Court was correct.
Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction, the dismissal was correct and typically
would be affirmed. Because, however, the matter is before us in McKinnon’s other
appeal, we will simply dismiss these two.