United States v. Granville, 71-3639.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-3639.,71-3639. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 1073 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paul Willoughby GRANVILLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Paul Willoughby Granville pro. se.
Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Charles O. Farrar, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Granville is a federal prisoner presently serving a confinement sentence imposed December 18, 1969, from which no direct appeal was taken. He now appeals from the denial below of his motion to modify that sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant has applied to this Court for appointment of counsel to prosecute this appeal. The record shows, however, that the motion for modification of sentence was filed some 20 months after the appellant's sentence had become final. Rule 35 provides that such a motion must be filed within 120 days after sentencing in a case in which no direct appeal was taken. Since no direct appeal was taken from the judgment and sentence in this case, the court below lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested, and this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal. Rule 45(b), F.R.Crim.P.; United States v. Gorman, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 632; United States v. Ellenbogen, 2 Cir. 1968, 390 F.2d 537, cert. denied 1968, 393 U.S. 918, 89 S.Ct. 241, 21 L.Ed.2d 206.
The appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Mendoza
...United States v. Flores, 507 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1975); United States v. Bryan, 498 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. Granville, 456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972), at least barring special circumstances, cf. United States v. Mehrtens, 494 F.2d 1172, 1176 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.......
-
United States v. Hamilton
...United States v. Mehrtens, 494 F.2d 1172 (5th Cir. 1974); Peterson v. United States, 432 F.2d 545 (8th Cir. 1970); United States v. Granville, 456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Gorman, 431 F.2d 632 (5th Cir. 1970). In addition, the time limits within which a motion may be file......
-
United States v. Isaacs
...(5th Cir. 1974). The 120-day time limit in this Rule is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by judicial order. United States v. Granville, 456 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir. 1972). Three circuits have caused writs of mandamus to be issued to preclude reduction in sentences after the 120-day period. ......
-
Banks v. United States, EC 73-53-K.
...statutory period of Rule 35 applies not only to motions or petitions to reduce sentence but to modify them as well. United States v. Granville, 456 F.2d 1073 (5 Cir. 1972); United States v. Gorman, supra; Zaffarano v. Blackwell, 383 F.2d 719 (5 Cir. 1967). Additionally, respondent strongly ......
-
When rules are more important than justice.
...817 F.2d at 1376. (36) Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(a). (37) Id. (38) Id. (39) Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b). (40) See, e.g., United States v. Granville, 456 F.2d 1073, 1073 (5th Cir. 1972) (holding that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion to modify sentence filed 20 month......