United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 30, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41608
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIM C. WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C-02-CR-105-1)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Tim C. Williams appeals from his
conviction, sentence, and final order of criminal forfeiture
following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to launder money and
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five
kilograms of cocaine in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)
and (h); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. We must examine
the basis of our jurisdiction, and must do so on our own motion if
necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Under FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(3), the time period for filing a
notice of appeal is tolled by the filing of specified postjudgment
motions. Although not listed among the motions in Rule 4(b)(3)(A),
a motion for reconsideration tolls the 10-day period for filing a
notice of appeal. See United States v. Brewer, 60 F.3d 1142, 1143-
44 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449,
1465-67 (5th Cir. 1992). Williams’s November 5, 2002, “Opposed
Motion to Vacate Conviction and Sentence, and to Dismiss the
Indictment,” was filed within 10 days of the entry of Williams’s
final judgment of conviction and sentence and thus was a timely-
filed motion for reconsideration. As such, it suspended the time
for filing a notice of appeal. See Brewer, 60 F.3d at 1143-44;
FED. R. APP. P. 4(b).
As the district court has not ruled on Williams’s motion for
reconsideration, this case must be REMANDED for the limited
purposes of allowing that court to rule on that motion. The
district court is directed to rule on Williams’s motion for
reconsideration as expeditiously as practicable, consistent with a
just and fair disposition of the matter. See Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d
256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). We retain jurisdiction over the
appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand. Williams’s
“Unopposed Motion to Supplement the Record with Government’s Motion
and District Court’s Order Unsealing Sentencing Transcripts” is
HELD IN ABEYANCE pending district court’s ruling in this limited
remand.
2
LIMITED REMAND.
3