United States v. Marsh
| Docket Number | 18-4609 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 2019 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
17 cases
-
United States v. Byrd
... ... raised by an opposing party ... Whether a rule precludes ... equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional character ... but rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for ... such flexibility.”) (internal quotation omitted); ... United States v. Marsh , 944 F.3d 524, 529-30 (4th ... Cir. 2019) (same) ... Several ... other circuits have held that § 3582(c)(1)(A) imposes a ... mandatory claimprocessing rule not subject to equitable ... waiver. See, e.g. , United States v. Houck , ... 2 ... ...
-
United States v. Muhammad
...court, we understand this requirement to be non-jurisdictional, and thus waived if it is not timely raised. United States v. Marsh , 944 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 2019). Not all threshold requirements are jurisdictional. Stewart v. Iancu , 912 F.3d 693, 700 (4th Cir. 2019). The Supreme Court ......
-
United States v. Boone
...See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(j)(1)(B) (providing that district court must advise defendant of right to appeal sentence); United States v. Marsh, 944 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 2019) (ruling that Rule 32(j) requires district court to advise defendant of right to appeal even when defendant has agreed......
-
United States v. Williams
..."Some claim-processing rules are ‘mandatory’ " and therefore "unalterable if properly raised by an opposing party." United States v. Marsh , 944 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Lambert , 139 S. Ct. at 714 ). For such rules, even equitable tolling cannot be applied to "forgive a late ......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Sentencing
...required because defense counsel mistakenly told defendant that defendant had no right to appeal and court agreed); U.S. v. Marsh, 944 F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir. 2019) (resentencing required because court failed to advise defendant of right to appeal after imposing sentence); U.S. v. Butler, 9......
-
Review Proceedings
...because defendant failed to file timely notice of appeal); U.S. v. Muhammud, 701 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir. 2012) (same); U.S. v. Marsh, 944 F.3d 524, 529-30 (4th Cir. 2019) (appeal barred because defendant failed to timely file notice of appeal, though district court erroneously failed to in......