US v. Demond Jackson, No. 12-7794 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7794 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEMOND JACKSON, a/k/a D.J., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, Chief District Judge. (3:99-cr-00015-5) Submitted: February 20, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Demond Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Gregory McVey, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Demond Andre Jackson appeals from the district court s order denying the court s own 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction Sentencing of sentence Guidelines reconsideration. The under and the 2011 denying court s initial amendments Jackson s order was to the motion for entered on January 13, 2012, and Jackson s notice of appeal was untimely filed, at the earliest, on October 5. appeal of this order as untimely. We thus dismiss the See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (providing for fourteen day appeal period in criminal case); see also United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 750 (10th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that court may raise timeliness of criminal appeal sua sponte). While Jackson s appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration was timely filed, the district court was without jurisdiction to consider a motion for reconsideration in a § 3582 proceeding. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). of this motion. facts and materials legal before Accordingly, we affirm the denial We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.