USA v. Daniel Collins, No. 17-30125 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 2, 2017.
Download PDF
Case: 17-30125 Document: 00514172734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30125 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DANIEL WAYNE COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:04-CR-50170-4 Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Daniel Wayne Collins pleaded guilty to one charge of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and one charge of possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense. He was sentenced to serve 168 months in prison on the former charge, to run consecutively to a 60-month sentence on the latter charge, as well as five years on supervised release. The district court denied both his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence and the ensuing motion for reconsideration. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30125 Document: 00514172734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 No. 17-30125 Collins’s notice of appeal is, as the Government asserts, untimely as to the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence because it was not filed within 14 days of the court’s order denying the motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (explaining that § 3582 is a criminal provision and the time limit for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case is jurisdictional). However, the notice of appeal was timely filed with respect to the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Nonetheless, because Collins’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 14 days following the district court’s ruling on his § 3582(c)(2) motion, it was an unauthorized motion that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48 (5th Cir. 1982). See also United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 58 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1993). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
