Case: 16-11670 Document: 00514238677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/15/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-11670 FILED
Summary Calendar November 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROYCE NEWTON,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-234-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Royce Newton, federal prisoner # 25725-177, pleaded guilty to being a
felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to the statutory maximum
sentence of 120 months of imprisonment. Proceeding pro se, Newton
challenges the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(1). He also
moves for appointment of counsel.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 16-11670 Document: 00514238677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/15/2017
No. 16-11670
As Newton acknowledges, he did not file a timely notice of appeal
following the district court’s October 13, 2016 order denying the Government’s
Rule 35(b)(1) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Newton’s pro se motion
requesting the district court to reconsider its denial of the Government’s Rule
35(b)(1) motion was filed more than 14 days after entry of the district court’s
October 13, 2016 order. Thus, Newton’s pro se motion cannot serve as a motion
to reconsider that judgment. See United States v Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449,
1466 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, to the extent that Newton appeals the denial of his
pro se motion, he “has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized
motion” that had no jurisdictional basis. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d
140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because a timely notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional prerequisite in
criminal cases, see United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir.
2007), we can review the underlying order denying the Government’s Rule
35(b)(1) motion. However, Newton has failed to show that the district court’s
decision was illegal “or a gross abuse of discretion.” See United States v.
Nerren, 613 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED. Newton’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
2